Horayot 12

ומי הוה שמן המשחה והתניא משנגנז ארון נגנז שמן המשחה וצנצנת המן ומקלו של אהרן שקדיה ופרחיה וארגז ששלחו פלשתים דורון לישראל שנאמר ואת כלי הזהב אשר השבתם לו אשם תשימו בארגז מצדו ושלחתם אתו והלך

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).

ומי גנזו יאשיהו מלך יהודה גנזו שראה שכתוב בתורה יולך ה׳ אתך ואת מלכך וגו׳ צוה וגנזום שנאמר ויאמר ללוים המבינים לכל ישראל הקדושים לה׳ תנו את ארון הקדש בבית אשר בנה שלמה בן דוד מלך ישראל אין לכם משא בכתף עתה עבדו את ה׳ אלהיכם ואת עמו ישראל

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).

ואמר רבי אלעזר אתיא שם שם אתיא משמרת משמרת אתיא דורות דורות אמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא

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.

תנו רבנן כיצד מושחין את המלכים כמין נזר ואת הכהנים כמין כי מאי כמין כי אמר רב מנשיא בר גדא כמין כף יוני

§ 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.

תני חדא בתחלה מוצקין שמן על ראשו ואחר כך נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ותניא אחריתי בתחלה נותנין לו שמן בין ריסי עיניו ואחר כך מוצקים לו שמן על ראשו תנאי היא איכא דאמרי משיחה עדיפא ואיכא דאמרי יציקה עדיפא

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.

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר יציקה עדיפא דכתיב ויצק משמן המשחה על ראש אהרן וימשח אתו לקדשו ומאן דאמר משיחה עדיפא מאי טעמא קסבר שכן אתה מוצא אצל כלי שרת והכתיב ויצק ובסוף וימשח הכי קאמר מאי טעם ויצק משום דוימשח

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.

תנו רבנן כשמן הטוב [וגו׳] ירד על הזקן זקן אהרן וגו׳ כמין שני טפי מרגליות היו תלויות לאהרן בזקנו אמר רב פפא תנא כשהוא מספר עולות ויושבות לו בעיקר זקנו ועל דבר זה היה משה דואג אמר שמא חס ושלום מעלתי בשמן המשחה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כשמן הטוב וגו׳ כטל חרמון מה טל חרמון אין בו מעילה אף שמן המשחה שבזקן אהרן אין בו מעילה

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.

ועדיין היה אהרן דואג אמר שמא משה לא מעל אבל אני מעלתי יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו הנה מה טוב ומה נעים שבת אחים גם יחד מה משה לא מעל אף אתה לא מעלת

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.

תנו רבנן אין מושחים את המלכים אלא על המעיין כדי שתמשך מלכותם שנאמר ויאמר המלך להם קחו עמכם את עבדי אדניכם [וגו׳] והורדתם אתו אל גחון

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).

אמר רבי אמי האי מאן דבעי לידע אי מסיק שתיה אי לא ניתלי שרגא בעשרה יומי דבין ראש השנה ליום הכפורים בביתא דלא נשיב זיקא אי משיך נהוריה נידע דמסיק שתיה

§ 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.

ומאן דבעי למיעבד בעיסקא ובעי למידע אי מצלח אי לא מצלח לירבי תרנגולא אי שמין ושפר מצלח

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.

האי מאן דבעי למיפק [לאורחא] ובעי למידע אי חזר ואתי לביתא אי לא ניקום בביתא דחברא אי חזי בבואה דבבואה לידע דהדר ואתי לביתא ולאו מלתא היא דלמא חלשא דעתיה ומיתרע מזליה אמר אביי השתא דאמרת סימנא מילתא היא [לעולם] יהא רגיל למיחזי בריש שתא קרא ורוביא כרתי וסילקא ותמרי

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.

אמר להו רב משרשיא לבריה כי בעיתו מיעל ומיגמרי קמי רבייכו גרסו מתניתא ועלו לקמי רבייכו וכי יתביתו קמיה חזו לפומיה דכתיב והיו עיניך ראות את מוריך וכי גרסיתו גרסו על נהרא דמיא דכי היכי דמשכן מיא משכן שמעתתייכו ותיבו אקילקלי דמתא מחסיא ולא תיבו אפדני דפומבדיתא טב גלדנא סריא [דמתא מחסיא למיכל] מכותחא דרמי כיפי

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.

רמה קרני באלהי רמה קרני ולא רמה פכי דוד ושלמה שנמשחו בקרן נמשכה מלכותן שאול ויהוא שנמשחו בפך לא נמשכה מלכותן

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.

המשוח בשמן המשחה וכו׳ תנו רבנן משיח יכול מלך תלמוד לומר כהן אי כהן יכול מרובה בגדים תלמוד לומר משיח אי משיח יכול משוח מלחמה תלמוד לומר והכהן המשיח שאינו משיח על גביו

§ 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.

מאי משמע כדאמר רבא הירך המיומנת שבירך הכא נמי המשיח המיומן שבמשוחים

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.

אמר מר משיח יכול מלך מלך פר הוא דמייתי שעיר הוא דמייתי איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא על שגגת מעשה יביא שעיר על העלם דבר יביא פר קא משמע לן

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.

אין בין משוח בשמן המשחה כו׳ מתניתין דלא כרבי מאיר דאי רבי מאיר הא תניא מרובה בגדים מביא פר הבא על כל המצות דברי רבי מאיר ולא הודו לו חכמים

§ 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.

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר דתניא משיח אין לי אלא משוח בשמן המשחה מרובה בגדים מנין תלמוד לומר הכהן המשיח

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.

במאי אוקימתיה כרבנן

The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אימא סיפא אין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר אלא פר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה אתאן לרבי מאיר דתניא אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול ועבר ומינו כהן אחר תחתיו הראשון חוזר לעבודתו והשני כל מצות כהונה עליו דברי רבי מאיר [רבי יוסי אומר ראשון חוזר לעבודתו ושני אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול ולא לכהן הדיוט]

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.

אמר רבי יוסי מעשה ביוסף בן אילים מצפורי שאירע בו פסול בכהן גדול ועבר ומינו אחר תחתיו ולא הניחוהו אחיו הכהנים להיות לא כהן גדול ולא כהן הדיוט כהן גדול משום איבה כהן הדיוט משום מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין

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.

רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי מאיר אמר רב חסדא אין רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי מאיר רב יוסף אמר רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי

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.

רבא אמר רבי שמעון היא וסבר לה כרבי מאיר בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

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.

דתניא דברים שבין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט אלו הם פר הבא על כל המצות ופר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה ולא פורע ולא פורם אבל הוא פורם מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה ואין מטמא לקרובים ומוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח

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.

ומקריב אונן ואינו אוכל [ואינו חולק] מקריב חלק בראש ונוטל חלק בראש ומשמש בשמונה כלים וכל עבודת יום הכפורים אינה כשרה אלא בו ופטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו

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.

וכולן נוהגין במרובה בגדים חוץ מפר המביא על כל המצות וכולן נוהגין במשיח שעבר חוץ מפר יום הכיפורים ועשירית האיפה וכולן אין נוהגין במשוח מלחמה חוץ מחמשה דברים האמורים בפרשה לא פורע ולא פורם ואין מטמא לקרובים ומוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אינו מחזיר

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.

והאי ממאי דרבי שמעון היא אמר רב פפא מאן שמעת ליה דאמר פטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו רבי שמעון

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.

חוץ מחמשה דברים האמורים בפרשה מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן והכהן הגדול מאחיו זה כהן גדול אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה זה משוח מלחמה ומלא את ידו ללבש את הבגדים זה מרובה בגדים על כולן הוא אומר ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרם ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא

§ 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).

יכול יהו כולן מקריבין אוננים תלמוד לומר כי נזר שמן משחת אלהיו עליו עליו ולא על חבירו ואחר שחלקו הכתוב יכול לא יהא מצווה על הבתולה תלמוד לומר והוא

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.

כתנאי והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח אחר שחלק הכתוב ריבה דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו מחמת מומין מנין תלמוד לומר והוא

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.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן משיח שנצטרע מהו באלמנה מידחא דחי או מיפטר פטר לא הוה בידיה

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 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.

זימנין הוי יתיב רב פפא וקמבעיא ליה אמר ליה הונא בריה דרב נחמן לרב פפא תנינא אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו עבר מחמת מומין מנין תלמוד לומר והוא קם נשקיה ברישיה ויהיב ליה ברתיה

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.

מתני׳ כהן גדול פורם מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה כהן גדול מקריב אונן ולא אוכל וההדיוט לא מקריב ולא אוכל

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.

גמ׳ אמר [רב] למטה למטה ממש למעלה למעלה ממש ושמואל אמר למטה למטה מקמי שפה למעלה למעלה מקמי שפה וזה וזה בצואר

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.

מיתיבי על כל המתים כולן רצה מבדיל קמי שפה שלו רצה אינו מבדיל קמי שפה שלו על אביו ועל אמו מבדיל כיון דבעלמא הוי קרע קרי כאן בגדיו לא יפרם

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.

שמואל כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה דאמר כל קרע שאינו מבדיל שפה שלו אינו אלא קרע של תפלות ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה קריעה בכהן גדול

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?

והא תניא אילו נאמר ראש לא יפרע ובגד לא יפרם הייתי אומר בראש ובגד של סוטה הכתוב מדבר תלמוד לומר את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרם שאינו בפריעה ופרימה כל עיקר דברי רבי יהודה רבי ישמעאל אומר אינו פורם כדרך שבני אדם פורמין אלא הוא מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה

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.

שמואל סבר לה כרבי יהודה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

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.

מתני׳ כל התדיר מחבירו קודם את חבירו וכל המקודש מחבירו קודם את חבירו פר המשיח ופר העדה עומדים פר המשיח קודם לפר העדה בכל מעשיו

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי אמר אביי דאמר קרא מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד (למה לי) מכדי כתיב עולת הבקר עולת התמיד למה לי הכי קאמר רחמנא כל דתדירה קדמה

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.

וכל המקודש מחבירו הוא קודם את חבירו מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל וקדשתו לכל דבר שבקדושה לפתוח ראשון ולברך ראשון וליטול מנה יפה ראשון

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.