This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat. For the daf for Friday, click back to previous daf.
How could Yehoachaz have been anointed with shemen hamishcha if Yoshiyahu hid the shemen hamishcha? What else did Yoshiyahu hide, and for what reason?
The king and kohen gadol are anointed in different ways—how is each performed?
Kings were anointed near a flowing stream as a good omen, symbolizing that their reign would endure. The Gemara digresses into a broader discussion about various practices people use to seek signs—whether they will survive the year, succeed in business, return safely from a journey, and so on. Some authorities caution against relying on such signs. Abaye, however, says that since we see signs do have meaning, one should eat symbolic foods on Rosh Hashana—such as gourds, chard, dates, and others—because they grow quickly, serving as a good omen for the coming year.
Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Mishna, holding that even a kohen gadol who assumed the role by wearing the special garments (rather than being anointed) would still be required to bring a bull offering if he sinned. From where does he derive this ruling? A difficulty arises, as the continuation of the Mishna appears to align with Rabbi Meir’s position. Could it be that the Mishna is split—part following Rabbi Meir and part not? If not, how can the Mishna be reconciled? Three different answers are offered to resolve this question.
The Mishna teaches that there are five mitzvot commanded to the kohen gadol that also apply to the mashuach milchama—the kohen who addresses the people before they go out to war. A braita provides the source for this ruling.
Rava asked Rav Nachman whether a kohen gadol who becomes leprous is permitted to marry a widow. Rav Nachman did not know the answer. Rav Papa later posed the same question, and Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman responded.
The Mishna discusses differences between a kohen gadol and a regular kohen regarding the laws of mourning—specifically, whether they may perform Temple service while in the state of onen (the period between the death of a relative and burial), and how they tear their garments. The kohen gadol tears his garment l’mata and a regular kohen l’maala. Rav and Shmuel disagree about how to translate these terms in this context.
The Mishna rules that an action performed regularly (tadir) takes precedence over one that is less frequent. Additionally, if one mitzvah is more sanctified than another, it takes precedence. From where are these principles derived?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Tova and David Kestenbaum in loving memory of Tova’s father, Rabbi Dr. Israel Rivkin z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. “My father was a pillar of strength and love for our family, a passionate learner of Torah, and a man whose chessed for his community and Klal Yisrael knew no bounds. He was deeply grateful to be living in Israel, together with my mother, surrounded by generations of descendants — a dream he cherished and fulfilled with joy and pride. יהי זכרו ברוך”
Horayot 12
וּמִי הֲוָה שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: מִשֶּׁנִּגְנַז אָרוֹן, נִגְנַז שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְצִנְצֶנֶת הַמָּן וּמַקְלוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן שְׁקֵדֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ וְאַרְגַּז שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים דּוֹרוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר הֲשֵׁבֹתֶם לוֹ אָשָׁם תָּשִׂימוּ בָאַרְגַּז מִצִּדּוֹ וְשִׁלַּחְתֶּם אֹתוֹ וְהָלָךְ״.
The Gemara asks with regard to the fact that Jehoahaz was anointed: And was there anointing oil during the days of Jehoahaz? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When the Ark of the Covenant was sequestered, the anointing oil, and the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms (see Numbers 17:23), and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to Israel, were all sequestered with it, as it is stated: “And you shall take the Ark of the Lord, and lay it upon the cart, and put the vessels of gold that you return Him as a guilt-offering in a chest by its side and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8).
וּמִי גְּנָזוֹ? יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה גְּנָזוֹ, שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״יוֹלֵךְ ה׳ אֹתְךָ וְאֶת מַלְכְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״, צִוָּה וּגְנָזוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לַלְוִיִּם הַמְּבִינִים לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּדוֹשִׁים לַה׳ תְּנוּ אֶת אֲרוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה בֶן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין לָכֶם מַשָּׂא בַּכָּתֵף עַתָּה עִבְדוּ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְאֵת עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
And who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, sequestered it, as he saw that it is written in the Torah in the portion of rebuke: “The Lord will lead you, and your king whom you shall establish over you, unto a nation that you have not known” (Deuteronomy 28:36). He commanded and the people sequestered them, as it is stated: “And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, and who were sacred unto the Lord: Place the sacred Ark in the room that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel built; there shall be no more burden upon your shoulders. Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel” (II Chronicles 35:3).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָתְיָא ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״, אַתְיָא ״מִשְׁמֶרֶת״ ״מִשְׁמֶרֶת״, אָתְיָא ״דּוֹרוֹת״ ״דּוֹרוֹת״! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא.
And Rabbi Elazar says: One derives a verbal analogy between the term: There, written with regard to the Ark (see Exodus 29:43), and the term: There, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33); and between the term: Keepsake, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: Keepsake, written with regard to Aaron’s staff (see Numbers 17:25–26); and between the term: Generations, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: Generations, written with regard to the anointing oil (see Exodus 30:31). By means of these verbal analogies it is derived that all of these items were sequestered. Rav Pappa said: They anointed Jehoahaz with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מוֹשְׁחִין אֶת הַמְּלָכִים? כְּמִין נֵזֶר. וְאֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים? כְּמִין כִּי. מַאי ״כְּמִין כִּי״? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: כְּמִין כָּף יְוָנִי.
§ The Sages taught: How does one anoint the kings? One smears the oil in a manner that is similar to the form of a crown around his head. And how does one anoint the priests? One smears the oil in a shape like the Greek letter chi. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Like the Greek letter chi? Rav Menashya bar Gadda said: Like the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew letter kaf.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: בַּתְּחִלָּה מוֹצְקִין שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו. וְתַנְיָא אַחֲרִיתִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצְקִים לוֹ שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא.
It is taught in one baraita: Initially, they pour oil on the priest’s head, and thereafter, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes. And it is taught in a different baraita: Initially, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes, and thereafter, they pour oil on his head. The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im. Some say: Anointing with oil between his eyes is preferable and takes precedence, and some say: Pouring oil on his head is preferable and takes precedence.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצֹק מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל רֹאשׁ אַהֲרֹן וַיִּמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ לְקַדְּשׁוֹ״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? קָסָבַר: שֶׁכֵּן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֵצֶל כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיִּצֹק״, וּבַסּוֹף ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַאי טַעַם ״וַיִּצֹק״? מִשּׁוּם דְּ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״.
What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said that pouring oil on his head is preferable? It is as it is written: “And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), indicating that pouring precedes anointing. And the one who said that anointing is preferable and takes precedence, what is the reason for his opinion? He holds: Anointing takes precedence as that is what you find with regard to service vessels (see Numbers 7:1). They were anointed, but the anointing oil was not poured on them. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the priests: “And he poured,” and ultimately: “And anointed”? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: What is the reason that he poured the oil? It is due to the fact that he had already anointed them. Anointing is the primary component of the process.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כַּשֶּׁמֶן הַטּוֹב [וְגוֹ׳] יֹרֵד עַל הַזָּקָן זְקַן אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳״ – כְּמִין שְׁנֵי טִפֵּי מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ תְּלוּיוֹת לְאַהֲרֹן בִּזְקָנוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְסַפֵּר, עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹשְׁבוֹת לוֹ בְּעִיקַּר זְקָנוֹ, וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם מָעַלְתִּי בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״כְּשֶׁמֶן הַטּוֹב וְגוֹ׳ כְּטַל חֶרְמוֹן״, מָה טַל חֶרְמוֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁבִּזְקַן אַהֲרֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
The Sages taught: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil, shaped like pearls, were suspended for Aaron from his beard. Rav Pappa said that it is taught: When Aaron would speak and his beard would move, those drops would miraculously rise and settle on the roots of his beard so that they would not fall. Moses was concerned about this matter. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, I misused the consecrated anointing oil and poured more than necessary, as two additional drops remain? A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments. Like the dew of Hermon” (Psalms 133:2–3). This analogy teaches: Just as there is no misuse of the dew of Hermon, which is not consecrated, so too, with regard to the anointing oil that is on Aaron’s beard, there is no misuse of consecrated property.
וַעֲדַיִין הָיָה אַהֲרֹן דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אֲבָל אֲנִי מָעַלְתִּי? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״הִנֵּה מַה טּוֹב וּמַה נָּעִים שֶׁבֶת אַחִים גַּם יָחַד״, מָה מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אַף אַתָּה לֹא מָעַלְתָּ.
And still Aaron was concerned. He said: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property; but perhaps I misused consecrated property, as the additional oil is on my beard and I enjoy it. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מוֹשְׁחִים אֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא עַל הַמַּעְיָין, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּמָּשֵׁךְ מַלְכוּתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לָהֶם קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם אֶת עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֵיכֶם [וְגוֹ׳] וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ אֶל גִּחוֹן״.
The Sages taught: One anoints the kings only upon a spring, as an omen, so that their kingdom will continue like a spring, as it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon before the death of David: “And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord, and let Solomon my son ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Tzadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel and sound the shofar and say: Long live King Solomon” (I Kings 1:33–34).
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לִידַּע אִי מַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ אִי לָא, נִיתְלֵי שְׁרָגָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה יוֹמֵי דְּבֵין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּבֵיתָא דְּלָא נָשֵׁיב זִיקָא. אִי מָשֵׁיךְ נְהוֹרֵיהּ – נִידַּע דְּמַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ.
§ Apropos good omens, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Ami said: This person who seeks to know if he will complete his year or if he will not, i.e., whether or not he will remain alive in the coming year, let him light a lamp, during the ten days that are between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, in a house in which wind does not blow. If its light continues to burn, he knows that he will complete his year.
וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד בְּעִיסְקָא, וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי מַצְלַח אִי לָא מַצְלַח, לִירַבֵּי תַּרְנְגוֹלָא. אִי שָׁמֵין וְשָׁפַר, מַצְלַח.
And one who seeks to conduct a business venture and wishes to know if he will succeed or if he will not succeed, let him raise a rooster. If the rooster grows fat and healthy, he will succeed.
הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיפַּק [לְאוֹרְחָא] וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי (חָזַר) [הָדַר] וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתָא, אִי לָא – נֵיקוּם בְּבֵיתָא דְּחַבָּרָא, אִי חָזֵי בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה לִידַּע דְּהָדַר וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתֵאּ. וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא, דִּלְמָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וּמִיתְּרַע מַזָּלֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ סִימָנָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, [לְעוֹלָם] יְהֵא רָגִיל לְמִיחְזֵי בְּרֵישׁ שַׁתָּא קָרָא וְרוּבְּיָא, כַּרָּתֵי וְסִילְקָא וְתַמְרֵי.
One who seeks to embark on a journey and wishes to know if he will return and come to his home or if he will not, let him go to a dark [daḥavara] house. If he sees the shadow of a shadow he shall know that he will return and come home. The Sages reject this: This omen is not a significant matter. Perhaps he will be disheartened if the omen fails to appear, and his fortune will suffer and it is this that causes him to fail. Abaye said: Now that you said that an omen is a significant matter, a person should always be accustomed to seeing these on Rosh HaShana: Squash, and fenugreek, leeks, and chard, and dates, as each of these grows quickly and serves as a positive omen for one’s actions during the coming year.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לִבְרֵיהּ: כִּי בָּעֵיתוּ מֵיעַל וּמִיגְמַרי קַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ, גְּרֻסוּ מַתְנִיתָא וְעַלּוּ לְקַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ. וְכִי יָתְבִיתוּ קַמֵּיהּ, חֲזוֹ לְפוּמֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״. וְכִי גָרְסִיתוּ, גְּרֻסוּ עַל נַהֲרָא דְּמַיָּא, דְּכִי הֵיכִי דְּמָשְׁכִן מַיָּא מׇשְׁכָן שְׁמַעְתָּתַיְיכוּ. וְתִיבוּ אַקִּילְקְלֵי דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא, וְלָא תִּיבוּ אַפַּדְנֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – טָב גִּלְדָּנָא סַרְיָא [דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא לְמֵיכַל], מִכּוּתָּחָא דְּרָמֵי כֵּיפֵי.
Apropos good omens, Rav Mesharshiyya said to his son: When you seek to enter and study before your teacher, study the baraita first, and only then enter before your teacher. And when you are sitting before him, look to his mouth, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). And when you study, study adjacent to a river of water; just as the water flows, your studies will flow unimpeded. He added: And it is preferable for you to sit on the rubbish heaps [akilkelei] of Mata Meḥasya, and do not sit in the palaces [appadnei] of Pumbedita. Better to eat the rotten fish [gildana] of Mata Meḥasya than to eat kutḥa, which displaces rocks, a metaphor for how potent it is.
״רָמָה קַרְנִי בֵּאלֹהָי״, ״רָמָה קַרְנִי״ וְלֹא רָמָה פַּכִּי, דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּקֶרֶן – נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן, שָׁאוּל וְיֵהוּא שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּפַךְ – לֹא נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן.
Apropos good omens for anointing, it is stated in the prayer of Hannah, Samuel’s mother: “My horn is exalted in my God” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara infers: My horn is exalted, and my jug is not exalted. David and Solomon were anointed with oil from a horn. This was a good omen for them and their reign endured. Saul and Jehu were anointed with oil from a jug and their reign did not endure.
הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – יָכוֹל מֶלֶךְ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּהֵן״. אִי כֹּהֵן, יָכוֹל מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מָשִׁיחַ״. אִי מָשִׁיחַ, יָכוֹל מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָשִׁיחַ עַל גַּבָּיו.
§ The mishna teaches: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. The Sages taught: “Anointed” is written in the verse (Leviticus 6:15). One might have thought that the reference is to a king. Therefore, the verse states: “Priest.” If the reference is to a priest, one might have thought that the reference is to a priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. Therefore, the verse states: “Anointed.” If the reference is to one who is anointed, one might have thought that the reference is even to a priest anointed for war. Therefore, the verse states: “And the anointed priest,” indicating that there is no anointed priest over him; rather, he is the highest-ranking priest.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ – הַמְיוּמָּן שֶׁבַּמְּשׁוּחִים.
The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? The Gemara answers: It is as Rava said with regard to the term “the thigh” in the verse: “The sciatic nerve that is on the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33); the reference is to the stronger of the thighs. Here too, where the verse states: “The anointed,” the reference is to the most distinguished of those anointed, i.e., the High Priest.
אָמַר מָר: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – יָכוֹל מֶלֶךְ. מֶלֶךְ פַּר הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי? שָׂעִיר הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה יָבִיא שָׂעִיר, עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר יָבִיא פַּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: “Anointed” is written in the verse. One might have thought that the reference is to a king. The Gemara asks: Is it a bull that a king brings for a sin-offering? It is a male goat that he brings, as the Torah states explicitly, later in that passage. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to say this, as it may enter your mind to say: It is for the unwitting performance of an action for which all people are liable to bring a sin-offering that a king shall bring a male goat as his offering; but for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action, a king shall bring a bull. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is only the High Priest who brings a bull.
אֵין בֵּין מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא תַּנְיָא: מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, isn’t it taught in a baraita: A priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments brings a bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis did not concede that point to him.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita: “Anointed” is written in the verse. I have derived only a priest anointed with the anointing oil. From where do I derive the halakha of a priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments? The verse states: “The anointed priest,” from which it is derived that anyone who is appointed as the High Priest is included, even if he was not anointed.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתֵּיהּ? כְּרַבָּנַן,
The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְעָבַר וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי כׇּל מִצְוֹת כְּהוּנָּה עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. [רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְשֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט].
Say the latter clause: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering; but with regard to all other matters the two are equal. In this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest and he left his position and they appointed another priest in his stead, after the cause of his disqualification passes, the first priest returns to his service as High Priest. And with regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are still incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service, and the second is unfit to serve in either position; he may serve neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן אִילֵּים מִצִּפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְעָבַר, וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא הֱנִיחוּהוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת לֹא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין.
The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left his position, the priests appointed another, Yosef ben Eilim, in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification passed, his brethren the priests did not allow Yosef ben Eilim to serve, neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to enmity, jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as an ordinary priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.
רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי.
The Gemara asks: Can it be that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to different tanna’im. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.
רָבָא אָמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
Rava said: The entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to one matter and disagrees with him with regard to one matter.
דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֵלּוּ הֵם: פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְלֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם. אֲבָל הוּא פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחְזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ,
This is as it is taught in a baraita: These are matters with regard to which there are differences between a High Priest and an ordinary priest: The High Priest brings the bull that comes for any of the mitzvot, and the bull of Yom Kippur, and the daily tenth of an ephah meal-offering. And he may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments as expressions of mourning; but he rends his garment from below in an inconspicuous manner, and the ordinary priest rends his garment from above, in the typical manner. And the High Priest may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge.
וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל [וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק]. מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כֵּלִים. וְכׇל עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא בּוֹ, וּפָטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.
The baraita continues: And the High Priest sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner on the day that a close relative dies, but he may not partake of the offerings on that day and he does not receive a share of those offerings. He sacrifices a portion at the head of the priests, i.e., whenever he chooses, and takes a portion at the head, i.e., he takes a portion from any offering that he chooses. And he performs the Temple service wearing eight priestly garments, and the entire Yom Kippur service is valid only when performed by him, and he is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים חוּץ מִפַּר הַמֵּבִיא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בְּמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר חוּץ מִפַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה: לֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר.
The baraita continues: And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, except for the bull the High Priest brings for all the mitzvot. And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to a former anointed High Priest, except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah. And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated (see Leviticus, chapter 21): He may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments, and he may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: He does not restore the unwitting murderer to his home.
וְהַאי מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to this baraita, from where can it be derived that the tanna is Rabbi Shimon? Rav Pappa said: Whom did you hear who says: A High Priest is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? It is Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest, and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, who does not bring a bull for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action.
חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – זֶה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, ״אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה״ – זֶה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, ״וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים״ – זֶה מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים. עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם וְעַל כׇּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״.
§ The baraita teaches: And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10); this is a High Priest. “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”; this is the priest anointed for war. “And who is consecrated to don the garments”; this is the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments. With regard to all of them, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments, neither shall he come upon any dead body” (Leviticus 21:10–11).
יָכוֹל יְהוּ כּוּלָּן מַקְרִיבִין אוֹנְנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי נֵזֶר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְאַחַר שֶׁחָלְקוּ הַכָּתוּב, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.
One might have thought that all of these priests sacrifice offerings as acute mourners. Therefore, the verse states: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it is derived: “Upon him,” the High Priest, but not upon another priest. And after the verse differentiated the priest anointed for war, one might have thought that he would not be commanded to marry a virgin, a mitzva that appears in the following verse. Therefore, the verse states with the letter vav as a prefix: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), which serves to include the priest anointed for war.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח״, אַחַר שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב, רִיבָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.
The Gemara comments: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the verse “And he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Once the verse had distinguished between a priest anointed for war and a High Priest in terms of bringing offerings as an acute mourner, it included the priest anointed for war with regard to the halakhot that follow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? Therefore, the verse states: “And he,” to include a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no source available to include the priest anointed for war.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, מַהוּ בְּאַלְמָנָה? מִידְחָא דָּחֵי, אוֹ מִיפְטָר פָּטַר? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ.
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In the case of an anointed High Priest who was afflicted with leprosy, what is the halakha with regard to marrying a widow? Is he temporarily disqualified from service, i.e., does he remain a High Priest and is it therefore prohibited for him to marry a widow? Or is he totally absolved of his status as High Priest and therefore it is permitted for him to marry a widow? The answer was not available to him.
זִימְנִין הָוֵי יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרַב פָּפָּא, תְּנֵינָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״. קָם נַשְּׁקֵיהּ בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ וִיהַיב לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיה.
On another occasion, Rav Pappa was sitting and he raised the same dilemma. Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Pappa: We learn in a baraita: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? The verse states: “And he.” Leprosy is an example of a blemish, so it is prohibited for a High priest afflicted with leprosy to marry a widow. When Rav Pappa heard this baraita, he arose and kissed him on his head and gave him his daughter to marry, due to his appreciation for his expertise in Torah study.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן וְלֹא אוֹכֵל, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט לֹא מַקְרִיב וְלֹא אוֹכֵל.
MISHNA: A High Priest rends his garments from below when he is in mourning, and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above like a non-priest. A High Priest sacrifices offerings as an acute mourner, i.e., on the day of the death of one of his close relatives, but he may not eat from those offerings. And an ordinary priest who is an acute mourner neither sacrifices offerings nor eats from those offerings.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר [רַב]: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מַמָּשׁ, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מַמָּשׁ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה. וְזֶה וָזֶה בַּצַּוָּאר.
GEMARA: Rav says: From below, written with regard to the High Priest, means actually from below, from the bottom of the garment, and from above means actually from above, from the top of the garment. And Shmuel said: From below means from below the neckline, and from above means from above the neckline, i.e., from the neckline itself, and both this High Priest and that ordinary priest rend their garments at the neck of their garment.
מֵיתִיבִי: עַל כׇּל הַמֵּתִים כּוּלָּן – רָצָה מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, רָצָה אֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. עַל אָבִיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ – מַבְדִּיל, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעָלְמָא הָוֵי קֶרַע, קְרִי כָּאן ״בְּגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״!
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: For all the dead relatives for whom one rends his garments, if he wishes he rends the neckline of his garment asunder; if he wishes he does not rend the neckline of his garment asunder. If he is rending his garments for his father or for his mother he rends the neckline asunder. Since in general, it is a tear even without rending the neckline asunder, one can read here with regard to the High Priest: “Nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10). This supports the opinion of Rav that the High Priest does not rend his garments from above like others do; rather, he rends his garments from below.
שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל קֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרַע שֶׁל תִּפְלוּת. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְרִיעָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל?
The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Any tear that does not rend his neckline asunder is only a gratuitous tear that serves no purpose. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda rending of garments involves rending the neckline, the High Priest may rend his garment from above provided that he does not rend the neckline. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda of the opinion that there is rending of garments for a High Priest?
וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״רֹאשׁ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבֶגֶד לֹא יִפְרֹם״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּרֹאשׁ וּבֶגֶד שֶׁל סוֹטָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּפְרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ פּוֹרֵם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם פּוֹרְמִין, אֶלָּא הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Had it been stated: He shall neither let the hair of a head grow, nor rend garments, I would have said: It is with regard to the head and the garment of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota] that the verse is speaking, and it means that the High Priest must not loosen her hair or rend her garments, in the manner that an ordinary priest does to the sota. Therefore, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10), indicating that he is not included in the mitzva to grow long hair and rend garments at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: He does not rend his garments in the manner that people typically rend their garments. Rather, he rends his garment from below and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest does not rend his garments at all.
שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter, i.e., the way in which garments are rent, and disagrees with him with regard to one matter, as Shmuel holds that the High Priest rends his garments.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְכׇל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה עוֹמְדִים – פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם לְפַר הָעֵדָה בְּכׇל מַעֲשָׂיו.
MISHNA: Any mitzva that is more frequent than another mitzva precedes that other mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation, which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions, i.e., its sacrificial rites.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִלְּבַד עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״, (לְמָה לִי) מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״ – ״עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״ לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: כֹּל דִּתְדִירָה קָדְמָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna that the more frequent matter takes precedence: From where are these matters derived? Abaye said: It is as the verse states concerning the additional offerings brought on Festivals: “Beside the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt-offering” (Numbers 28:23). Once it is written: “The burnt-offering of the morning,” why do I need: “A daily burnt-offering”? Clearly the reference is to the daily burnt-offering of the morning. This is what the Merciful One is saying: Any matter that is more frequent takes precedence. Since it is a daily offering, it is more frequent. Therefore, it precedes other offerings.
וְכׇל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ הוּא קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה: לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן.
The mishna continues: And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these matters? It is as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that from the verse written with regard to a priest: “And you shall sanctify him, as he sacrifices the bread of your God, he shall be holy unto you” (Leviticus 21:8), it is derived that a priest should be esteemed and granted precedence with regard to any matter of sanctity. He should be the one to open first in the reading of the Torah, and to recite the blessing of the zimmun first, and to take a fine portion first. The priest who is more sanctified takes precedence.
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 43: Flour and Frankinscense
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 42: Again, Bloodwork
Zevahim 41: God Loves the Jewish People
Zevahim 40: The Curtains and the Incense
Zevahim 39: Blood on the Inner Altar
Zevahim 38: When Beit Hillel Turns Stringent and Beit Shammai Lenient
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
Zevachim Daf 22-29 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 36: Invalid Offerings
Zevahim 35: A Fetus, Eggs, and the Separation of Animals
Zevahim 34: Pouring and Disposing of the Dregs
Zevahim 33: The Heavy Laying on of Hands
Zevahim 31: It’s a Measure of Time: Half a Loaf of Bread
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
New York, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Raanana, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Horayot 12
וּמִי הֲוָה שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: מִשֶּׁנִּגְנַז אָרוֹן, נִגְנַז שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְצִנְצֶנֶת הַמָּן וּמַקְלוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן שְׁקֵדֶיהָ וּפְרָחֶיהָ וְאַרְגַּז שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים דּוֹרוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר הֲשֵׁבֹתֶם לוֹ אָשָׁם תָּשִׂימוּ בָאַרְגַּז מִצִּדּוֹ וְשִׁלַּחְתֶּם אֹתוֹ וְהָלָךְ״.
The Gemara asks with regard to the fact that Jehoahaz was anointed: And was there anointing oil during the days of Jehoahaz? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When the Ark of the Covenant was sequestered, the anointing oil, and the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and Aaron’s staff with its almonds and blossoms (see Numbers 17:23), and the chest that the Philistines sent as a gift to Israel, were all sequestered with it, as it is stated: “And you shall take the Ark of the Lord, and lay it upon the cart, and put the vessels of gold that you return Him as a guilt-offering in a chest by its side and send it away that it may go” (I Samuel 6:8).
וּמִי גְּנָזוֹ? יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה גְּנָזוֹ, שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״יוֹלֵךְ ה׳ אֹתְךָ וְאֶת מַלְכְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״, צִוָּה וּגְנָזוּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לַלְוִיִּם הַמְּבִינִים לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל הַקְּדוֹשִׁים לַה׳ תְּנוּ אֶת אֲרוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה בֶן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵין לָכֶם מַשָּׂא בַּכָּתֵף עַתָּה עִבְדוּ אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְאֵת עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
And who sequestered the Ark? Josiah, king of Judea, sequestered it, as he saw that it is written in the Torah in the portion of rebuke: “The Lord will lead you, and your king whom you shall establish over you, unto a nation that you have not known” (Deuteronomy 28:36). He commanded and the people sequestered them, as it is stated: “And he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, and who were sacred unto the Lord: Place the sacred Ark in the room that Solomon, son of David, king of Israel built; there shall be no more burden upon your shoulders. Now serve the Lord your God and His people Israel” (II Chronicles 35:3).
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָתְיָא ״שָׁם״ ״שָׁם״, אַתְיָא ״מִשְׁמֶרֶת״ ״מִשְׁמֶרֶת״, אָתְיָא ״דּוֹרוֹת״ ״דּוֹרוֹת״! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בַּאֲפַרְסְמָא דַּכְיָא.
And Rabbi Elazar says: One derives a verbal analogy between the term: There, written with regard to the Ark (see Exodus 29:43), and the term: There, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33); and between the term: Keepsake, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: Keepsake, written with regard to Aaron’s staff (see Numbers 17:25–26); and between the term: Generations, written with regard to the jar of manna (see Exodus 16:33), and the term: Generations, written with regard to the anointing oil (see Exodus 30:31). By means of these verbal analogies it is derived that all of these items were sequestered. Rav Pappa said: They anointed Jehoahaz with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מוֹשְׁחִין אֶת הַמְּלָכִים? כְּמִין נֵזֶר. וְאֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים? כְּמִין כִּי. מַאי ״כְּמִין כִּי״? אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: כְּמִין כָּף יְוָנִי.
§ The Sages taught: How does one anoint the kings? One smears the oil in a manner that is similar to the form of a crown around his head. And how does one anoint the priests? One smears the oil in a shape like the Greek letter chi. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Like the Greek letter chi? Rav Menashya bar Gadda said: Like the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew letter kaf.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: בַּתְּחִלָּה מוֹצְקִין שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו. וְתַנְיָא אַחֲרִיתִי: בַּתְּחִלָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שֶׁמֶן בֵּין רִיסֵי עֵינָיו, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹצְקִים לוֹ שֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשׁוֹ! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא.
It is taught in one baraita: Initially, they pour oil on the priest’s head, and thereafter, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes. And it is taught in a different baraita: Initially, they place oil for him between the lashes of his eyes, and thereafter, they pour oil on his head. The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im. Some say: Anointing with oil between his eyes is preferable and takes precedence, and some say: Pouring oil on his head is preferable and takes precedence.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר יְצִיקָה עֲדִיפָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּצֹק מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עַל רֹאשׁ אַהֲרֹן וַיִּמְשַׁח אֹתוֹ לְקַדְּשׁוֹ״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְשִׁיחָה עֲדִיפָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? קָסָבַר: שֶׁכֵּן אַתָּה מוֹצֵא אֵצֶל כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיִּצֹק״, וּבַסּוֹף ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: מַאי טַעַם ״וַיִּצֹק״? מִשּׁוּם דְּ״וַיִּמְשַׁח״.
What is the reason for the opinion of the one who said that pouring oil on his head is preferable? It is as it is written: “And he poured from the anointing oil upon Aaron’s head and anointed him to sanctify him” (Leviticus 8:12), indicating that pouring precedes anointing. And the one who said that anointing is preferable and takes precedence, what is the reason for his opinion? He holds: Anointing takes precedence as that is what you find with regard to service vessels (see Numbers 7:1). They were anointed, but the anointing oil was not poured on them. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written with regard to the priests: “And he poured,” and ultimately: “And anointed”? The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: What is the reason that he poured the oil? It is due to the fact that he had already anointed them. Anointing is the primary component of the process.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כַּשֶּׁמֶן הַטּוֹב [וְגוֹ׳] יֹרֵד עַל הַזָּקָן זְקַן אַהֲרֹן וְגוֹ׳״ – כְּמִין שְׁנֵי טִפֵּי מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת הָיוּ תְּלוּיוֹת לְאַהֲרֹן בִּזְקָנוֹ. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מְסַפֵּר, עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹשְׁבוֹת לוֹ בְּעִיקַּר זְקָנוֹ, וְעַל דָּבָר זֶה הָיָה מֹשֶׁה דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא חַס וְשָׁלוֹם מָעַלְתִּי בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״כְּשֶׁמֶן הַטּוֹב וְגוֹ׳ כְּטַל חֶרְמוֹן״, מָה טַל חֶרְמוֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁבִּזְקַן אַהֲרֹן אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
The Sages taught: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments” (Psalms 133:2). Two drops of anointing oil, shaped like pearls, were suspended for Aaron from his beard. Rav Pappa said that it is taught: When Aaron would speak and his beard would move, those drops would miraculously rise and settle on the roots of his beard so that they would not fall. Moses was concerned about this matter. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, I misused the consecrated anointing oil and poured more than necessary, as two additional drops remain? A Divine Voice emerged and said: “It is like the precious oil upon the head coming down upon the beard, Aaron’s beard, that comes down upon the collar of his garments. Like the dew of Hermon” (Psalms 133:2–3). This analogy teaches: Just as there is no misuse of the dew of Hermon, which is not consecrated, so too, with regard to the anointing oil that is on Aaron’s beard, there is no misuse of consecrated property.
וַעֲדַיִין הָיָה אַהֲרֹן דּוֹאֵג, אָמַר: שֶׁמָּא מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אֲבָל אֲנִי מָעַלְתִּי? יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״הִנֵּה מַה טּוֹב וּמַה נָּעִים שֶׁבֶת אַחִים גַּם יָחַד״, מָה מֹשֶׁה לֹא מָעַל, אַף אַתָּה לֹא מָעַלְתָּ.
And still Aaron was concerned. He said: Perhaps Moses did not misuse consecrated property; but perhaps I misused consecrated property, as the additional oil is on my beard and I enjoy it. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Psalms 133:1). Just as your brother Moses did not misuse consecrated property, so too, you did not misuse consecrated property.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מוֹשְׁחִים אֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא עַל הַמַּעְיָין, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּמָּשֵׁךְ מַלְכוּתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לָהֶם קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם אֶת עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֵיכֶם [וְגוֹ׳] וְהוֹרַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ אֶל גִּחוֹן״.
The Sages taught: One anoints the kings only upon a spring, as an omen, so that their kingdom will continue like a spring, as it is stated with regard to the coronation of Solomon before the death of David: “And the king said unto them: Take with you the servants of your lord, and let Solomon my son ride upon my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon. And let Tzadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there king over Israel and sound the shofar and say: Long live King Solomon” (I Kings 1:33–34).
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לִידַּע אִי מַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ אִי לָא, נִיתְלֵי שְׁרָגָא בַּעֲשָׂרָה יוֹמֵי דְּבֵין רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּבֵיתָא דְּלָא נָשֵׁיב זִיקָא. אִי מָשֵׁיךְ נְהוֹרֵיהּ – נִידַּע דְּמַסֵּיק שַׁתֵּיהּ.
§ Apropos good omens, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Ami said: This person who seeks to know if he will complete his year or if he will not, i.e., whether or not he will remain alive in the coming year, let him light a lamp, during the ten days that are between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, in a house in which wind does not blow. If its light continues to burn, he knows that he will complete his year.
וּמַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד בְּעִיסְקָא, וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי מַצְלַח אִי לָא מַצְלַח, לִירַבֵּי תַּרְנְגוֹלָא. אִי שָׁמֵין וְשָׁפַר, מַצְלַח.
And one who seeks to conduct a business venture and wishes to know if he will succeed or if he will not succeed, let him raise a rooster. If the rooster grows fat and healthy, he will succeed.
הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיפַּק [לְאוֹרְחָא] וּבָעֵי לְמִידַּע אִי (חָזַר) [הָדַר] וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתָא, אִי לָא – נֵיקוּם בְּבֵיתָא דְּחַבָּרָא, אִי חָזֵי בָּבוּאָה דְבָבוּאָה לִידַּע דְּהָדַר וְאָתֵי לְבֵיתֵאּ. וְלָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא, דִּלְמָא חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ, וּמִיתְּרַע מַזָּלֵיהּ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ סִימָנָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, [לְעוֹלָם] יְהֵא רָגִיל לְמִיחְזֵי בְּרֵישׁ שַׁתָּא קָרָא וְרוּבְּיָא, כַּרָּתֵי וְסִילְקָא וְתַמְרֵי.
One who seeks to embark on a journey and wishes to know if he will return and come to his home or if he will not, let him go to a dark [daḥavara] house. If he sees the shadow of a shadow he shall know that he will return and come home. The Sages reject this: This omen is not a significant matter. Perhaps he will be disheartened if the omen fails to appear, and his fortune will suffer and it is this that causes him to fail. Abaye said: Now that you said that an omen is a significant matter, a person should always be accustomed to seeing these on Rosh HaShana: Squash, and fenugreek, leeks, and chard, and dates, as each of these grows quickly and serves as a positive omen for one’s actions during the coming year.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא לִבְרֵיהּ: כִּי בָּעֵיתוּ מֵיעַל וּמִיגְמַרי קַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ, גְּרֻסוּ מַתְנִיתָא וְעַלּוּ לְקַמֵּי רַבַּיְיכוּ. וְכִי יָתְבִיתוּ קַמֵּיהּ, חֲזוֹ לְפוּמֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיוּ עֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת אֶת מוֹרֶיךָ״. וְכִי גָרְסִיתוּ, גְּרֻסוּ עַל נַהֲרָא דְּמַיָּא, דְּכִי הֵיכִי דְּמָשְׁכִן מַיָּא מׇשְׁכָן שְׁמַעְתָּתַיְיכוּ. וְתִיבוּ אַקִּילְקְלֵי דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא, וְלָא תִּיבוּ אַפַּדְנֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא – טָב גִּלְדָּנָא סַרְיָא [דְּמָתָא מַחְסֵיָא לְמֵיכַל], מִכּוּתָּחָא דְּרָמֵי כֵּיפֵי.
Apropos good omens, Rav Mesharshiyya said to his son: When you seek to enter and study before your teacher, study the baraita first, and only then enter before your teacher. And when you are sitting before him, look to his mouth, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). And when you study, study adjacent to a river of water; just as the water flows, your studies will flow unimpeded. He added: And it is preferable for you to sit on the rubbish heaps [akilkelei] of Mata Meḥasya, and do not sit in the palaces [appadnei] of Pumbedita. Better to eat the rotten fish [gildana] of Mata Meḥasya than to eat kutḥa, which displaces rocks, a metaphor for how potent it is.
״רָמָה קַרְנִי בֵּאלֹהָי״, ״רָמָה קַרְנִי״ וְלֹא רָמָה פַּכִּי, דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּקֶרֶן – נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן, שָׁאוּל וְיֵהוּא שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ בְּפַךְ – לֹא נִמְשְׁכָה מַלְכוּתָן.
Apropos good omens for anointing, it is stated in the prayer of Hannah, Samuel’s mother: “My horn is exalted in my God” (I Samuel 2:1). The Gemara infers: My horn is exalted, and my jug is not exalted. David and Solomon were anointed with oil from a horn. This was a good omen for them and their reign endured. Saul and Jehu were anointed with oil from a jug and their reign did not endure.
הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – יָכוֹל מֶלֶךְ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֹּהֵן״. אִי כֹּהֵן, יָכוֹל מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מָשִׁיחַ״. אִי מָשִׁיחַ, יָכוֹל מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָשִׁיחַ עַל גַּבָּיו.
§ The mishna teaches: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. The Sages taught: “Anointed” is written in the verse (Leviticus 6:15). One might have thought that the reference is to a king. Therefore, the verse states: “Priest.” If the reference is to a priest, one might have thought that the reference is to a priest consecrated by donning multiple garments. Therefore, the verse states: “Anointed.” If the reference is to one who is anointed, one might have thought that the reference is even to a priest anointed for war. Therefore, the verse states: “And the anointed priest,” indicating that there is no anointed priest over him; rather, he is the highest-ranking priest.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ – הַמְיוּמָּן שֶׁבַּמְּשׁוּחִים.
The Gemara asks: From where is this inferred? The Gemara answers: It is as Rava said with regard to the term “the thigh” in the verse: “The sciatic nerve that is on the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33); the reference is to the stronger of the thighs. Here too, where the verse states: “The anointed,” the reference is to the most distinguished of those anointed, i.e., the High Priest.
אָמַר מָר: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – יָכוֹל מֶלֶךְ. מֶלֶךְ פַּר הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי? שָׂעִיר הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה יָבִיא שָׂעִיר, עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר יָבִיא פַּר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: “Anointed” is written in the verse. One might have thought that the reference is to a king. The Gemara asks: Is it a bull that a king brings for a sin-offering? It is a male goat that he brings, as the Torah states explicitly, later in that passage. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the tanna to say this, as it may enter your mind to say: It is for the unwitting performance of an action for which all people are liable to bring a sin-offering that a king shall bring a male goat as his offering; but for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action, a king shall bring a bull. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is only the High Priest who brings a bull.
אֵין בֵּין מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה כּוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הָא תַּנְיָא: מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as, if it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, isn’t it taught in a baraita: A priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments brings a bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, but the Rabbis did not concede that point to him.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר? דְּתַנְיָא: ״מָשִׁיחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ״.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita: “Anointed” is written in the verse. I have derived only a priest anointed with the anointing oil. From where do I derive the halakha of a priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments? The verse states: “The anointed priest,” from which it is derived that anyone who is appointed as the High Priest is included, even if he was not anointed.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתֵּיהּ? כְּרַבָּנַן,
The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְעָבַר וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי כׇּל מִצְוֹת כְּהוּנָּה עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. [רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְשֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט].
Say the latter clause: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering; but with regard to all other matters the two are equal. In this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest and he left his position and they appointed another priest in his stead, after the cause of his disqualification passes, the first priest returns to his service as High Priest. And with regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are still incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service, and the second is unfit to serve in either position; he may serve neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן אִילֵּים מִצִּפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְעָבַר, וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא הֱנִיחוּהוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת לֹא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין.
The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left his position, the priests appointed another, Yosef ben Eilim, in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification passed, his brethren the priests did not allow Yosef ben Eilim to serve, neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to enmity, jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as an ordinary priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.
רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי.
The Gemara asks: Can it be that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to different tanna’im. It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.
רָבָא אָמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא וְסָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
Rava said: The entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to one matter and disagrees with him with regard to one matter.
דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֵלּוּ הֵם: פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְלֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם. אֲבָל הוּא פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחְזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ,
This is as it is taught in a baraita: These are matters with regard to which there are differences between a High Priest and an ordinary priest: The High Priest brings the bull that comes for any of the mitzvot, and the bull of Yom Kippur, and the daily tenth of an ephah meal-offering. And he may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments as expressions of mourning; but he rends his garment from below in an inconspicuous manner, and the ordinary priest rends his garment from above, in the typical manner. And the High Priest may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge.
וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל [וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק]. מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כֵּלִים. וְכׇל עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא בּוֹ, וּפָטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.
The baraita continues: And the High Priest sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner on the day that a close relative dies, but he may not partake of the offerings on that day and he does not receive a share of those offerings. He sacrifices a portion at the head of the priests, i.e., whenever he chooses, and takes a portion at the head, i.e., he takes a portion from any offering that he chooses. And he performs the Temple service wearing eight priestly garments, and the entire Yom Kippur service is valid only when performed by him, and he is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים חוּץ מִפַּר הַמֵּבִיא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בְּמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר חוּץ מִפַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה: לֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר.
The baraita continues: And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, except for the bull the High Priest brings for all the mitzvot. And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to a former anointed High Priest, except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah. And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated (see Leviticus, chapter 21): He may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments, and he may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: He does not restore the unwitting murderer to his home.
וְהַאי מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר פָּטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to this baraita, from where can it be derived that the tanna is Rabbi Shimon? Rav Pappa said: Whom did you hear who says: A High Priest is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? It is Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest, and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, who does not bring a bull for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action.
חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – זֶה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, ״אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה״ – זֶה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, ״וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים״ – זֶה מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים. עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם וְעַל כׇּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״.
§ The baraita teaches: And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10); this is a High Priest. “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”; this is the priest anointed for war. “And who is consecrated to don the garments”; this is the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments. With regard to all of them, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments, neither shall he come upon any dead body” (Leviticus 21:10–11).
יָכוֹל יְהוּ כּוּלָּן מַקְרִיבִין אוֹנְנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי נֵזֶר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ. וְאַחַר שֶׁחָלְקוּ הַכָּתוּב, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.
One might have thought that all of these priests sacrifice offerings as acute mourners. Therefore, the verse states: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it is derived: “Upon him,” the High Priest, but not upon another priest. And after the verse differentiated the priest anointed for war, one might have thought that he would not be commanded to marry a virgin, a mitzva that appears in the following verse. Therefore, the verse states with the letter vav as a prefix: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), which serves to include the priest anointed for war.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח״, אַחַר שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב, רִיבָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.
The Gemara comments: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the verse “And he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Once the verse had distinguished between a priest anointed for war and a High Priest in terms of bringing offerings as an acute mourner, it included the priest anointed for war with regard to the halakhot that follow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? Therefore, the verse states: “And he,” to include a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no source available to include the priest anointed for war.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, מַהוּ בְּאַלְמָנָה? מִידְחָא דָּחֵי, אוֹ מִיפְטָר פָּטַר? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ.
Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In the case of an anointed High Priest who was afflicted with leprosy, what is the halakha with regard to marrying a widow? Is he temporarily disqualified from service, i.e., does he remain a High Priest and is it therefore prohibited for him to marry a widow? Or is he totally absolved of his status as High Priest and therefore it is permitted for him to marry a widow? The answer was not available to him.
זִימְנִין הָוֵי יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָמִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרַב פָּפָּא, תְּנֵינָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״. קָם נַשְּׁקֵיהּ בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ וִיהַיב לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיה.
On another occasion, Rav Pappa was sitting and he raised the same dilemma. Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Pappa: We learn in a baraita: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? The verse states: “And he.” Leprosy is an example of a blemish, so it is prohibited for a High priest afflicted with leprosy to marry a widow. When Rav Pappa heard this baraita, he arose and kissed him on his head and gave him his daughter to marry, due to his appreciation for his expertise in Torah study.
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן וְלֹא אוֹכֵל, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט לֹא מַקְרִיב וְלֹא אוֹכֵל.
MISHNA: A High Priest rends his garments from below when he is in mourning, and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above like a non-priest. A High Priest sacrifices offerings as an acute mourner, i.e., on the day of the death of one of his close relatives, but he may not eat from those offerings. And an ordinary priest who is an acute mourner neither sacrifices offerings nor eats from those offerings.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר [רַב]: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מַמָּשׁ, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מַמָּשׁ. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: לְמַטָּה – לְמַטָּה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה, לְמַעְלָה – לְמַעְלָה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה. וְזֶה וָזֶה בַּצַּוָּאר.
GEMARA: Rav says: From below, written with regard to the High Priest, means actually from below, from the bottom of the garment, and from above means actually from above, from the top of the garment. And Shmuel said: From below means from below the neckline, and from above means from above the neckline, i.e., from the neckline itself, and both this High Priest and that ordinary priest rend their garments at the neck of their garment.
מֵיתִיבִי: עַל כׇּל הַמֵּתִים כּוּלָּן – רָצָה מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, רָצָה אֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. עַל אָבִיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ – מַבְדִּיל, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעָלְמָא הָוֵי קֶרַע, קְרִי כָּאן ״בְּגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״!
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: For all the dead relatives for whom one rends his garments, if he wishes he rends the neckline of his garment asunder; if he wishes he does not rend the neckline of his garment asunder. If he is rending his garments for his father or for his mother he rends the neckline asunder. Since in general, it is a tear even without rending the neckline asunder, one can read here with regard to the High Priest: “Nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10). This supports the opinion of Rav that the High Priest does not rend his garments from above like others do; rather, he rends his garments from below.
שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל קֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרַע שֶׁל תִּפְלוּת. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְרִיעָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל?
The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Any tear that does not rend his neckline asunder is only a gratuitous tear that serves no purpose. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda rending of garments involves rending the neckline, the High Priest may rend his garment from above provided that he does not rend the neckline. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda of the opinion that there is rending of garments for a High Priest?
וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״רֹאשׁ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבֶגֶד לֹא יִפְרֹם״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּרֹאשׁ וּבֶגֶד שֶׁל סוֹטָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״, שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּפְרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה כׇּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ פּוֹרֵם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם פּוֹרְמִין, אֶלָּא הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה.
But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Had it been stated: He shall neither let the hair of a head grow, nor rend garments, I would have said: It is with regard to the head and the garment of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota] that the verse is speaking, and it means that the High Priest must not loosen her hair or rend her garments, in the manner that an ordinary priest does to the sota. Therefore, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10), indicating that he is not included in the mitzva to grow long hair and rend garments at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: He does not rend his garments in the manner that people typically rend their garments. Rather, he rends his garment from below and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest does not rend his garments at all.
שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter, i.e., the way in which garments are rent, and disagrees with him with regard to one matter, as Shmuel holds that the High Priest rends his garments.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְכׇל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה עוֹמְדִים – פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם לְפַר הָעֵדָה בְּכׇל מַעֲשָׂיו.
MISHNA: Any mitzva that is more frequent than another mitzva precedes that other mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation, which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions, i.e., its sacrificial rites.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִלְּבַד עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״, (לְמָה לִי) מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״ – ״עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״ לְמָה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: כֹּל דִּתְדִירָה קָדְמָה.
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna that the more frequent matter takes precedence: From where are these matters derived? Abaye said: It is as the verse states concerning the additional offerings brought on Festivals: “Beside the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt-offering” (Numbers 28:23). Once it is written: “The burnt-offering of the morning,” why do I need: “A daily burnt-offering”? Clearly the reference is to the daily burnt-offering of the morning. This is what the Merciful One is saying: Any matter that is more frequent takes precedence. Since it is a daily offering, it is more frequent. Therefore, it precedes other offerings.
וְכׇל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ הוּא קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה: לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן.
The mishna continues: And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these matters? It is as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that from the verse written with regard to a priest: “And you shall sanctify him, as he sacrifices the bread of your God, he shall be holy unto you” (Leviticus 21:8), it is derived that a priest should be esteemed and granted precedence with regard to any matter of sanctity. He should be the one to open first in the reading of the Torah, and to recite the blessing of the zimmun first, and to take a fine portion first. The priest who is more sanctified takes precedence.
