Horayot 12b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the latter clause: There is no difference between a serving High Priest and a former High Priest,

that is, a High Priest who first served as High Priest, and they removed him and appointed a second High Priest in his place. Afterwards the first High Priest returned to his service, while the second remained in his sanctity for all the laws of the service; there are no differences in law between the first High Priest, who is now serving as at first, and the second High Priest, who has now passed from his position [when the first High Priest returned to his service], and 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 High Priest must bring them from his own property!

But this law

comes

only

to Rabbi Meir.

As it was taught: If a disqualification occurred to a High Priest, and he passed from office, and they appointed another High Priest in his place,

and the first returned to his fitness, behold, the

first returns to his service. And the second: every mitzva of the High Priesthood applies to 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 kohen!

Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving Yosef ben Elim of Sepphoris, in whom a disqualification occurred as High Priest, and they appointed him

Yosef ben Elim

in his place,

and the first returned to his fitness,

and the incident came before the Sages, and they said: The first returns to his service; the second is fit neither to be a High Priest nor to be an ordinary kohen!

To serve as a

High Priest

he is not fit,

because of the hostility

of the first High Priest. But to serve as an

ordinary kohen

he is not fit,

because one elevates in sanctity and does not lower!

And if so, our Mishna in its latter clause, which said 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 property, while the second is also fit for the High Priesthood, necessarily holds in accordance with Rabbi Meir. For according to Rabbi Yosei, the second is not fit to be a High Priest.

And since we established the first clause specifically according to the Sages, who exempted one with additional garments from the bull brought for all the mitzvot, if so, there is a difficulty: Do we indeed establish the

first clause

according to the opinion of

the Sages, and

the

latter clause

according to the opinion of

Rabbi Meir?!

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said—

Yes!

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

Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna is the method of

Rabbi

and it was not taught according to two disputing tannaim; rather, this is what Rabbi himself held.

And he took it,

Rabbi taught it

according to the view of the tannaim,

according to disputing tannaim, because Rabbi held, concerning the law stated in the first clause, like the Sages, that one with additional garments does not bring a bull, and therefore he stated the first clause anonymously as the halakha, like the Sages. But concerning the law stated in the latter clause, that the second serves like the first, Rabbi held like Rabbi Meir, and he stated the Mishna anonymously like him.

Rava said:

Our Mishna is the method 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 one with additional garments does not bring a bull.

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

As it was taught:

The matters that distinguish a High Priest from an ordinary kohen are these:

a.

The bull brought for all the mitzvot,

which only the High Priest brings when he errs.

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.

And he does not expose

his hair

and does not rend

his garments over a close relative who died.

But he rends

his garments

from below, and

whereas

the ordinary kohen

rends his garments

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

e.

e.

And he does not become impure for relatives.

f.

And he is commanded concerning a virgin

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

g.

And he is forbidden to marry a widow.

h.

And he returns the killer

from his city of refuge at the time of his death.

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 take a portion

with the priests in the flesh of the sacrifices of that day on which he is an onen, not even in order to eat in the evening, when his mourning has ended.

j.

He offers a portion first,

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

k.

And he takes a portion first,

from the flesh of the sacrifices offered by other priests.

l.

And he serves in eight garments.

m. And all the service of Yom Kippur is valid only through him.

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

And all of these apply to one 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 all of these do not apply to a priest anointed for war—

except for the five matters stated in the passage

of the High Priest, and these are:

he does not expose

his hair.

And he does not rend

his garments over his dead.

And he does 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

killer

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 killer!

Here we have the position of a tanna who holds that a former anointed priest is equal in all his laws to a serving High Priest, except for bringing the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah, while on the other hand he holds that one with additional garments is exempt from the bull.

And the Gemara clarifies:

And this

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

from where

did you know

that it is Rabbi Shimon’s?

Rav Pappa said: Who is the one from whom you heard that he says

the law stated in the beraita: A High Priest

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

Rabbi Shimon

is he! [in the Mishna above, 9a], and necessarily this beraita is his teaching.

And the Gemara explains the law stated in the beraita: “And all of these do not 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 he shall fill his hand to wear the garments” —

This is one who is increased with garments.

“Concerning all of them he says: ‘His head shall not be untrimmed, his garments he shall not rend, and he shall not enter upon any dead person.’”

It might have been thought that all of them would offer

when they are

mourners? The Talmud says: “For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him.”

Upon him—and not upon his fellow!

The verse excluded the priest anointed for war, for although he is anointed, his law is not equal to that of a high priest, and he does not offer when he is a mourner .

And after the verse distinguished

the priest anointed for war from the high priest, and revealed that he does not offer when he is a mourner,

it might be thought

that we should learn that he is not obligated in the laws of a high priest, and

there should not be a commandment

for a priest anointed for war

concerning a virgin?

The Talmud says: “

And he

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

But not all the tannaim learned that “and he” comes to teach this law—that a priest anointed for war is commanded to marry a virgin—but

as a dispute between tannaim—this law is stated as a dispute between tannaim! For it was taught: “

this law is disputed by the tannaim, as it was taught: “

And he shall take a woman in her virginity” —

after the verse distinguished

between a priest anointed for war and a high priest with regard to offering in mourning,

it included

the priest anointed for war, and taught that he too is obligated to marry a virgin,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says:

The verse did not come to include a priest anointed for war, but to include a high priest in whom a blemish occurred, and thus we expound:

I have only

that he is obligated to marry a virgin

but

a high priest

who ceased

temporarily from his position

because of

the impurity of

his seminal emission,

and remained under the law of a high priest, since he can immerse, become pure, and return to his service, and therefore it is logical that he is obligated in a positive commandment to take a virgin. But a high priest who ceased from his position

because of blemishes

that occurred in his body, and will never be able to return to his service,

from where

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

The Talmud says, “And he,”

the verse included even those with blemishes!

Rava asked Rav Nahman:

A high priest

who is anointed and became leprous—what is the law regarding a widow?

And the aspects of the uncertainty are:

Whether only

he is pushed aside,

the high priest is pushed aside from his priesthood, because he cannot serve while he is leprous, but he is obligated in all the laws of the high priesthood and is forbidden to a widow.

Or

perhaps, during his leprosy,

he is entirely exempt

from the laws of the high priesthood and is permitted to a widow.

It was not in Rav Nahman’s hands

to resolve his uncertainty for him.

At times Rav Pappa was sitting, and this question arose for him

this uncertainty.

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

But

we learned: I have only one who ceased because of his seminal emission; one who ceased because of blemishes—from where

do we know that he is obligated in the positive commandment to marry a virgin and not a widow?

The Talmud says, “And he”!

But a leper is like one in whom a blemish occurred, and it is proven that he is forbidden to a widow!

Rav Pappa arose,

Rav Pappa

kissed him,

Huna, the son of Rav Nahman,

and gave him his daughter as a wife!

Mishna:

A high priest rends

his garments over his dead

from below.

And

the

ordinary

priest rends his garments

from above.

A high priest offers

when he is

a mourner,

but

he does not eat

the offering because of his mourning.

And the ordinary priest neither offers nor eats.

Gemara:

Rav said: “From below”

that they said—that a high priest is obligated to rend his garments from below—the intention is that he rends

literally from below,

at the lower edge of his tunic opposite his feet .

And “from above”

that they said concerning an ordinary priest means

literally from above,

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

And for his father and mother he rends and tears away the neck opening entirely, whereas for his other relatives he rends only below the edge of the neck opening, as will follow.

And Shmuel said:

What we learned in the Mishna, that the high priest rends

from below,

does not mean that he rends below, at the lower edge of his garment, but rather

below “before the edge,”

below the upper edge of the garment; and even for his father and mother he does not rend the neck opening itself, but rends below it.

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 what we learned in the Mishna, that the ordinary priest tears

above,

means that he tears

above “the edge,”

that he tears the upper edge of the garment and severs it completely.

And both this one and that one,

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

at the neck.

And not in accordance with Rav’s statement, that the High Priest tears the lower edge of the garment!

It was objected to Shmuel: The mitzva of tearing for every Israelite

on all the dead alike

is as follows:

if he wishes, he separates

[the edge]

by his tearing

“his edge.” If he wishes, he does not separate his edge.

That is, he does not need to tear the upper edge of the garment [which is around the neck]; rather, it is sufficient for him to tear beneath the edge, in such a manner that the tear is not discernible. For the principal law is to tear the neck-opening, and there is no need for him to tear the edge of the neck-opening until the tear is visible outwardly.

But

for his father and for his mother he separates

the edge completely with his tearing, because on account of their honor they instituted that he tear in such a manner that the tear will be visible outwardly!

And from this law there is reason to raise an objection against Shmuel:

since ordinarily,

in the case of a person who is not a priest, who tears for his relative [who is not his father or mother], if he tears beneath the upper edge and does not separate the edge,

it is a valid tear

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

then applicable here: “He shall not rend his garments”?!

And we answer:

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s view,

who disputes the beraita and

said: Every tear,

of every person,

in which he does not separate his edge,

of the neck-opening of the garment,

is only a tear of frivolity,

because the neck-opening continues to appear whole, and he does not fulfill the obligation of tearing except with a visible tear. Therefore, such a tear is not a tear that the High Priest is forbidden to make; rather, he must make it on account of anguish.

And we refute:

Does Rabbi Yehuda indeed hold that there is tearing for the High Priest

at all?

But it was taught in a beraita: Had it been stated, “He shall not let the hair of his head grow wild, and he shall not rend a garment,” I would have said that Scripture speaks of the head and garment of a woman suspected of adultery,

and the meaning of the verse would be that the uncovering of the woman suspected of adultery and the rending of her garment are not to be done by a High Priest, but by an ordinary priest.

The verse therefore states: “He shall not let the hair of his head grow wild, and he shall not rend his garments.”

The verse comes to teach you

that the

High Priest

is not subject to uncovering or rending at all,

and it is forbidden for him to tear his garments at all,

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, while the ordinary priest [rends] above.

And since Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda concerning the laws of tearing, how could he say that the High Priest tears below the edge? After all, Rabbi Yehuda said that he does not tear at all, even on account of anguish.

And

we answer:

Shmuel adopts Rabbi Yehuda’s view in one matter,

that every tear in which one does not separate the edge is not a tear,

but disagrees with him in one matter,

and holds that the High Priest is obligated to tear below the edge, on account of anguish.

Mishna:

Every

sacrifice or obligation

that is more frequent than its fellow

is

prior to its fellow,

such as the daily offerings, which take precedence over the additional offerings.

And every

sacrifice or person

that is more sacred than its fellow

is

prior to its fellow

that 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 courtyard for offering, then

the bull of the anointed priest takes precedence over the bull of the congregation in all its procedures!

The reason is that the anointed priest should first effect atonement for himself, and thereby be fit to perform the service of the bull of the congregation, which effects atonement for the community.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that the more frequent takes precedence over the one that is not more frequent?

Abaye said: From what the verse says

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

“Besides the morning burnt-offering, which is for the regular burnt-offering,

you shall offer these.” We must be precise:

now,

it is

written, “the morning burnt-offering,”

to teach us that the additional offering must be offered after the morning daily burnt-offering. For this is how the Sages explained the intention of this verse: Lest you say that this burnt-offering of the additional offering comes in place of the morning burnt-offering, therefore it is stated, “Besides the morning burnt-offering,” to teach that first one must offer the morning daily burnt-offering, and only afterward the burnt-offering of the additional offering.

And since we learned from “Besides the morning burnt-offering” to give precedence to the morning daily burnt-offering over the additional offerings, if so, why do I need what the verse repeated and said, “which is

for the regular burnt-offering”?

Rather,

this is what the Merciful One says: Every

mitzva

that is frequent, let it precede!

Here the verse revealed the reason for the precedence: this is a general rule in all mitzvot, that one gives precedence to the more frequent over the one that is not more frequent.

We learned in the Mishna:

And everything more sacred than its fellow takes precedence over its fellow!

And the Gemara discusses: This

from where do we know it?

For the tanney taught the words of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is stated concerning a priest,

“And you shall sanctify him,”

and what is this sanctity to which we are commanded to sanctify him? To show the importance of his sanctity in our eyes by giving him precedence

in every matter of sanctity:

to open

and read from the Torah

first.

And to recite

the blessing of invitation

first 22 ,

And to take a fine portion first!

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

From the fact that the Torah was particular to give precedence to a high priest on account of his sanctity, we learn concerning everything that is more holy than its fellow that it is a mitzva to give precedence to its fulfillment over the fulfillment of its fellow.