Horayot 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Come and hear the latter clause: There is no difference between an serving High Priest and a former High Priest,

that is, a High Priest who first served as High Priest, but was removed from office and another priest was appointed in his place. Afterwards, the first priest returned to his service, while the second retained his sanctity with regard to all the laws of the Temple service. There are no differences in law between the first priest, who is now serving as he did at first, and the second priest, who has now been removed from his position [when the first priest returned to his service]; both are equal with regard to all the laws of the High Priesthood,

except for the bull of Yom Kippur

which the High Priest brings on Yom Kippur,

and the tenth of an ephah

which the High Priest brings every day as a meal-offering: the first priest must bring these from his own funds!

But this law

applies

only

according to Rabbi Meir.

As it is taught in a beraita: If a disqualification occurred in a High Priest, and he was removed, and another priest was appointed in his place,

and the first subsequently regained his fitness, then

the first returns to his service. And the second has all the mitzvot of the High Priest incumbent upon him,

except that he does not actually serve,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service, but the second is fit neither to be a High Priest nor to be an ordinary priest!

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori, in which a disqualification occurred in the High Priest, and they appointed him

Yosef ben Eilim

in his place,

and the first subsequently regained his fitness,

and the matter came before the Sages, who said: The first returns to his service, but the second is fit neither to be a High Priest nor an ordinary priest!

To serve as a

High Priest

he is not fit,

because of the animosity

of the first High Priest. And to serve as an

ordinary priest

he is not fit,

because one ascends in sanctity and does not descend!

If so, the latter clause of our Mishna, which states that there are no differences in law between the first and the second except that the first must bring his bull on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah every day from his own funds, while the second is also fit for the High Priesthood, must necessarily follow Rabbi Meir. For according to Rabbi Yosei, the second is not fit to be a High Priest.

But since we established the first clause specifically according to the Rabbis, who exempt a priest with additional garments from the bull brought for all the mitzvot, the following difficulty arises: Are we to establish the

first clause

according to

the Rabbis, and

the

latter clause

according to

Rabbi Meir?!

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said—

Yes!

Indeed, this is so: we must establish the first clause according to the Rabbis and the latter clause according to Rabbi Meir!

Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna follows the view of

Rabbi;

it was not taught according to two conflicting tannaim, but rather this was Rabbi’s own view.

And he adopted it

Rabbi taught it

according to the view of the tannaim,

following different tannaim: with regard to the law stated in the first clause, Rabbi held like the Rabbis, that a priest with additional garments does not bring the bull, and therefore he stated the first clause anonymously as halakha, in accordance with the Rabbis. But with regard to the law stated in the latter clause, that the second serves like the first, Rabbi held like Rabbi Meir, and stated the Mishna anonymously in accordance with his view.

Rava said:

Our Mishna follows the view of

Rabbi Shimon. And he holds

Rabbi Shimon

like Rabbi Meir in one matter,

that the second priest is considered a High Priest like the first,

but disagrees with him in one matter,

that a priest with additional garments does not bring the bull.

And we find a beraita in which it is explained that Rabbi Shimon holds that a priest with additional garments does not bring the bull for all the mitzvot.

As it is taught:

These are the matters that distinguish a High Priest from an ordinary priest:

a.

The bull brought for all the mitzvot,

which only the High Priest brings when he sins unintentionally.

b.

And the bull of Yom Kippur,

through which the High Priest and the tribe of priests attain atonement.

c.

And the tenth of an ephah

of the High Priest every day.

d.

He does not let his hair grow wild

and

and does not rend

his garments over the death of a close relative.

But he rends

his garments

from below, whereas

the

ordinary priest

rends his garments

from above [these laws are explained in the following Mishna].

e.

e.

And he may not become impure for relatives.

f.

And he is commanded concerning a virgin

to marry her, and he may not marry a woman who has had intercourse.

g.

And he is forbidden to marry a widow.

h.

And he returns the murderer

from his city of refuge when he dies.

i.

And he offers sacrifices

when he is

an onen,

but

he does not eat

from the sacrifice when he is an onen,

and he does not receive a portion

with the priests of the sacrificial meat of that day on which he is an onen, even enough to eat in the evening, when his mourning has ended.

j.

He offers a portion first,

as he may choose for himself which portion to offer in the sacrifice.

k.

And he takes a portion first,

from the sacrificial meat offered by other priests.

l.

And he serves in eight garments.

m. And all the Yom Kippur service is valid only when performed by him.

n. And he is exempt for impurity of the Temple and its sacred objects.

And all of these apply to a priest with additional garments—

except for the bull brought

by the High Priest

for all the mitzvot!

And all of these apply to a former anointed priest—

except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah!

And none of these apply to a priest anointed for war—

except for the five matters stated in the passage

concerning the High Priest, and these are:

He does not let his hair grow wild,

his hair;

and he does not rend

his garments over his dead.

And he may not become impure for relatives

who died.

And he is commanded concerning a virgin

as a positive mitzva to marry her.

And he is forbidden to marry a widow.

And likewise

he returns

the

murderer

from his city of refuge upon his death,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say:

A priest anointed for war

does not return

the murderer!

We thus have the view of a tanna who holds that a former anointed priest is equal in all his laws to an serving priest, except with regard to bringing the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah; yet he maintains that a priest with additional garments is exempt from the bull.

And the Gemara clarifies:

And this

beraita, which holds that a priest with additional garments does not bring a bull for all the mitzvot,

from where

do you know

that it is Rabbi Shimon’s view?

Rav Pappa said: Who is it that you heard say

the law stated in the beraita, that a High Priest

is exempt for impurity of the Temple and its sacred objects—

Rabbi Shimon

is the one! [in the Mishna above, 9a]. Necessarily, this beraita is his.

And the Gemara explains the law stated in the beraita: “And none of these apply to a priest anointed for war,

except for the five matters stated in the passage!”

From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught: “And the High Priest from among his brothers”—

this is a High Priest.

“Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”—

this is a priest anointed for war.

“And fill his hand to wear the garments” —

This refers to one consecrated through the additional garments.

Concerning all of them it says: “He shall not let the hair of his head grow wild, he shall not rend his garments, and he shall not enter among any dead souls.”

One might think that all of them offer sacrifices

when they are

in a state of acute mourning. The verse therefore says: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him.” Upon him

—but not upon his fellow!

The verse excludes the anointed for war: although he is anointed, his law is not identical to that of the High Priest, and he does not offer sacrifices while in a state of acute mourning.

And once the verse distinguished

the anointed for war from the High Priest and revealed that he does not offer sacrifices while in acute mourning,

one might think

that he is not obligated by the laws of the High Priest, and

the anointed for war should not be commanded

to marry

a virgin?

The verse therefore says “

and he

shall take a woman who is a virgin.” The word “he” refers to each of the three priests mentioned at the beginning of the passage, teaching us that all three are obligated in this mitzva, and that the anointed for war is one of them.

But not all the tannaim understood that “he” comes to teach this law—that the anointed for war is commanded to marry a virgin. Rather,

it is a dispute between tannaim

—this law is the subject of a dispute between tannaim. For it was taught in a beraita: “

And he shall take a woman who is a virgin” —

once the verse distinguished

between the anointed for war and the High Priest with regard to offering sacrifices while in acute mourning,

it included

the anointed for war as well, teaching that he too is obligated to marry a virgin,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The verse did not come to include the anointed for war; rather, it came to include a High Priest who developed a physical blemish. And this is how we expound it:

I know only

that he is obligated to marry a virgin

when

he is a High Priest

who was removed

temporarily from his position

because of

impurity resulting from

a seminal emission,

but he retains the status of High Priest, since he can immerse, purify himself, and return to his service; it is therefore logical that he is obligated by a positive commandment to take a virgin. But a High Priest who was removed from his position

because of physical blemishes

that developed in his body, and who can never return to his service,

from where

do we know that he too is obligated to marry a virgin?

The verse therefore says, “and he,”

including even those with physical blemishes!

Rava asked Rav Nahman:

A

High Priest who developed leprosy—what is his status with regard to a widow?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Is it only that

he is rejected,

that the High Priest is removed from his priesthood because he cannot serve while afflicted with leprosy, but he remains obligated by all the laws of the High Priest and is forbidden to marry a widow?

Or

perhaps, while afflicted with leprosy,

he is entirely exempt

from the laws of the High Priest and is permitted to marry a widow?

He did not have it available

—Rav Nahman was unable to resolve his doubt for him.

At times Rav Pappa would sit, and this question would trouble him,

this doubt.

Huna, son of Rav Nahman, said to Rav Pappa:

Surely

we have learned: I know only of one who was removed because of a seminal emission; from where

do we know that one removed because of physical blemishes is obligated by a positive commandment to marry a virgin and not a widow?

The verse therefore says, “and he”!

And one afflicted with leprosy is like one who has developed a physical blemish, so it is proven that he is forbidden to marry a widow!

Rav Pappa rose,

Rav Pappa

kissed

Huna, son of Rav Nahman,

and gave him his daughter as a wife!

Mishna:

A High Priest rends

his garments over his deceased relative

from below.

And

the

ordinary

priest rends his garments

from above.

A High Priest offers sacrifices

when he is

in a state of acute mourning,

but

he does not eat

the sacrifice because of his acute mourning.

And an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats.

Gemara:

Rav said: “From below”

that they stated—that a High Priest is obligated to rend his garments from below—means that he rends

literally from below,

at the lower edge of his tunic, opposite his feet.

And “from above,”

which they stated with regard to an ordinary priest, means

literally from above,

at the neck, at the upper edge of the tunic, at its upper opening opposite the neck.

For his father and mother, he rends and completely tears open the neck opening, whereas for his other relatives he rends only below the edge of the neck opening, as will be explained below.

And Shmuel said: What we learned in the Mishna, that the High Priest rends

his garments

from below,

does not mean that he rends below, at the lower edge of his garment. Rather, he rends

below “the edge,”

beneath the upper edge of the garment; even for his father and mother, he does not tear the neck opening itself, but rends below it. [There is a difference, then, between Rav and Shmuel: according to Shmuel, a High Priest rends for his father and mother in the manner in which, according to Rav, an ordinary priest rends for his other relatives.]

It follows that according to Shmuel, the high priest rends for his father and mother in the manner in which, according to Rav, an ordinary priest rends for his other relatives.

And as for what we learned in the Mishna, that the ordinary köhen tears

above,

the intention is that he tears

above the “upper seam,”

tearing the upper edge of the garment and severing it completely.

Both this one and that one,

the tearing of the High Priest and of the ordinary köhen, is

at the neck.

And this is unlike Rav’s statement, that the High Priest tears the lower edge of the garment!

Meytivi

an objection to Shmuel: The mitzva of tearing for every Jew

for all the dead,

is as follows:

If he wishes, he severs

with his tear

his “upper seam.” If he wishes, he does not sever his upper seam.

That is, he need not tear the upper edge of the garment [which surrounds the neck]; rather, it is sufficient for him to tear below the seam, in a manner in which the tear is not discernible. For the basic requirement is to tear the neck opening, and he need not tear the edge of the neck opening so that the tear will be visible from the outside.

But

for his father and his mother, he severs

the seam completely with his tear, because, out of respect for them, the Sages instituted that he tear in a manner in which the tear is visible from the outside!

And from this halakha there is a difficulty against Shmuel:

Since ordinarily,

in the case of a non-köhen who tears for a relative [other than his father or mother], if he tears below the upper seam and does not sever the seam,

it is a valid tear

with which to fulfill the obligation of tearing for the dead, if so, how may the High Priest tear in this manner for his father and mother? Is it not the case that

“he shall not rend his garments”?!

The Gemara answers:

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagrees with the beraita and

said: Every tear,

made by anyone,

in which he does not sever his seam,

the neck opening of the garment,

is merely a tear of frivolity,

because the neck opening continues to appear intact, and one fulfills the obligation of tearing only with a visible tear. Therefore, such a tear is not the tear that the High Priest is prohibited from making; rather, he must make it because of his distress.

And the Gemara refutes this:

Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that there is any tearing by the High Priest

at all?

For it was taught in a beraita: Had it been stated, “He shall not let the hair of his head grow long, nor rend his garment,” I would have said that the verse is speaking of the head and garment of a woman suspected of adultery,

meaning that the uncovering of the sotah’s hair and the rending of her garment are not to be performed by the High Priest, but by an ordinary köhen.

The verse therefore states: “He shall not uncover the hair of his head, nor rend his garments.”

The verse comes to teach you

that a

High Priest

is not subject to uncovering or rending at all,

and it is entirely prohibited for him to tear his garments,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yishmael says: He does not rend in the manner in which people rend; rather, he,

the High Priest,

rends below, and the ordinary köhen above.

Since Shmuel follows Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the laws of tearing, how could he say that the High Priest tears below the upper seam? Rabbi Yehuda said that he may not tear at all, even because of distress.

And

the Gemara answers:

Shmuel follows Rabbi Yehuda in one respect,

that any tear in which one does not sever the seam is not a valid tear,

but disagrees with him in one respect,

and maintains that the High Priest is obligated to tear below the upper seam because of distress.

Mishna:

Every

sacrifice or obligation

that is more frequent than another

is

performed before the other,

for example, the daily offerings precede the additional offerings.

And every

sacrifice or person

that is more sacred than another

is

performed before the other,

which is not as sacred as it.

If

the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation were standing

before him in the Temple courtyard for sacrifice,

the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its procedures!

The reason is that the anointed priest must first achieve atonement for himself, so that he will be fit to perform the service of the bull of the congregation, which atones for the public.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

that the more frequent precedes the less frequent derived?

Abaye said: From where the verse says

regarding the additional offering of the festival of Passover [Numbers 28],

“aside from the morning burnt-offering, which is for the daily burnt-offering,

you shall offer these.” We must infer:

Now,

it is

written, “the morning burnt-offering,”

to teach us that the additional offering must be sacrificed after the morning daily offering, for this is how the Sages explained the intent of the verse: Lest you say that this burnt-offering of the additional offering comes in place of the morning burnt-offering, the verse therefore states, “aside from the morning burnt-offering,” teaching that the morning daily offering must first be sacrificed, and only afterward the burnt-offering of the additional offering.

And once we have learned from “aside from the morning burnt-offering” that the morning daily offering precedes the additional offerings, why do I need

“which is for the daily burnt-offering”?

Rather,

this is what the Merciful One said: Every

mitzva

that is more frequent comes first!

Here the verse revealed the reason for the precedence: This is a general principle applying to all mitzvot, that the more frequent precedes the less frequent.

We learned in the Mishna:

And everything more sacred than its counterpart is performed before its counterpart!

The Gemara asks: This—

from where do we derive it?

For the tanna taught the words of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is stated concerning a köhen,

“and you shall sanctify him,”

and what is this sanctity that we are commanded to confer upon him? We demonstrate the importance of his sanctity in our eyes by giving him precedence

in every sacred matter:

to open

the Torah reading and read

first.

And to recite

the zimmun blessing

first 22 ,

And to take a choice portion first!

For if he comes to divide with an Israelite in any matter, after they have divided equally, the Israelite says to the koen: “Choose and take whichever portion you wish!”

From the Torah’s insistence on giving precedence to the High Priest because of his sanctity, we learn that with regard to every matter that is more sacred than its fellow, it is a mitzva to give precedence to its fulfillment over the fulfillment of its fellow.