Horayot 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

The bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation:

the bull of the anointed priest precedes it!

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived?

The version of the Gemara before us follows the version of Tosafot Ha-Rosh.

As the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the bull of the congregation: “And he shall burn it the flesh of the bull of the congregation],

as he burned the first bull.”

That is, just as he burned the bull of the anointed priest, which was written earlier in the passage. Therefore, the bull of the priest is called “the first bull.”

And the beraita asks:

What does the phrase

“as he burned the

first bull”

come to teach? Why did the verse not say, “as he burned his bull” [that is, the bull of the anointed priest mentioned above]?

Rather, the verse comes to teach us

that

the bull of the anointed priest

shall be first,

that is, the bull of the anointed priest

shall precede the bull of the congregation in all its procedures!

[According to Rashi’s version, this should be explained as follows: Since the Torah wrote concerning the bull of the congregation, “And he shall do with the bull as he did with the sin-offering bull [of the anointed priest],” why did the Torah repeat and write, “as he burned the first bull”? Rather, from here we learn that the bull of the anointed priest shall be “first,” in that it shall precede the bull of the congregation in all its procedures.]

The Sages taught:

These are the laws of precedence:

a.

The bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation,

which were

standing

ready to be sacrificed —

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

The reason for this matter is:

Since the anointed priest effects atonement

through his service,

and the congregation receives atonement

through the bull performed by him,

it is logical that the offering that effects atonement should precede

the offering

of the one who effects atonement

before the offering of the one

who receives atonement.

That is, it is preferable that the anointed priest first attain atonement through the bringing of his offering, because he is the one who effects atonement for the congregation [through his service with the bull of the congregation], after he has already attained atonement for himself.

And similarly it says

with regard to the Yom Kippur service, that first the priest who effects atonement attains atonement for himself, and afterward those for whom he effects atonement attain atonement. As it is stated [Leviticus 16]: “

And the High Priest shall effect atonement

for the

sake of himself

first.

And

afterward he shall effect atonement

for the sake of his household and for the sake of the entire congregation of Israel!”

b.

The bull for an error in a matter of communal law

brought for other transgressions [except idolatry],

precedes the bull of

the community brought for an error in a matter of

idolatry!

And the Gemara explains the second part of the beraita:

What is the reason

that the bull for an error in a matter of the other mitzvot precedes the communal goat for idolatry?

Because

this one,

the bull for the other transgressions,

is a sin-offering,

whereas

this one,

the bull for idolatry,

is a burnt-offering.

.

And it was taught:

The sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in every circumstance, even when they were brought by two different people [and therefore the same applies to communal bulls that were brought for two separate obligations: the sin-offering bull precedes the burnt-offering bull]. For it is stated in the passage concerning people liable to bring a variable offering [such as for a false oath], [Leviticus 5], that they are required to bring a female sheep or a female goat as a sin-offering. If they cannot afford to purchase one of the flock, they must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering: “

And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first.”

And this verse is apparently superfluous.

For

what does it come to teach?

What does it come to teach?

If it comes to teach that the sin-offering

is sacrificed

first,

before the sacrifice of the burnt-offering, there is no need for this, for

it has already been stated

[there, in the second verse, later on],

“And he shall make the second one a burnt-offering according to the law.”

And the second verse, which appears later, comes to say that the sin-offering is sacrificed first because it comes to effect atonement for the one receiving atonement before the bringing of the burnt-offering [which is considered the bringing of a gift]. Effecting atonement precedes the bringing of the gift, because before atonement one cannot bring a gift.

Rather,

since the first verse is superfluous,

this establishes a principle

to say

that all sin-offerings precede the burnt-offerings that come together with them. And it is established for us

that this verse comes to teach

that even a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering,

even though an animal offering is more important than a bird offering.

Yet we find no circumstance in which one person would be obligated to bring a bird sin-offering and an animal burnt-offering at the same time. It is therefore proven from here that the intention of the verse is to say that every sin-offering must be given precedence over a burnt-offering, even the sacrifice of one person’s sin-offering over the sacrifice of another person’s burnt-offering. In such a case, the rationale that the atonement should precede the gift does not apply. Rather, the sin-offering is sacrificed first because it is more sacred than a burnt-offering.

And from here we learn that a communal sin-offering bull and a communal burnt-offering bull, although they come for two separate obligations, must nevertheless be arranged so that the sin-offering bull precedes the burnt-offering bull.

c.

The bull for idolatry

of the congregation, which is a burnt-offering,

precedes the goat for idolatry

of the congregation, even though the goat is a sin-offering!

And the Gemara discusses the beraita’s statement that the bull for idolatry precedes the goat for idolatry that comes together with it:

Why

does the bull precede the goat? After all,

this

goat

is a sin-offering,

whereas

this

bull

is a burnt-offering,

is it not?

They say in the West in the name of Rabba bar Mari: The sin-offering

of this community, which comes for

idolatry,

is written in the Torah with

a missing

letter,

an alef,

as [Numbers 15] states: “

Leḥatat is written

concerning it.” This omission comes to teach us that this sin-offering lacks the full status of a sin-offering: it does not effect atonement by itself, but only together with the atonement of the burnt-offering. Therefore, the sacrifice of the burnt-offering precedes the sacrifice of this sin-offering, because it is the burnt-offering that effects atonement.

Whereas

Rava said:

The reason that the burnt-offering bull precedes in the sacrifice is

because it is written concerning it

[there]: “And the entire congregation shall prepare one young bull as a burnt-offering

according to the law,

and a goat as a sin-offering.” The verse comes to introduce the novel teaching that in the case of idolatry, the burnt-offering and the sin-offering must be sacrificed specifically according to the law written in this passage, namely, in the order in which they are written: the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering!

And the Gemara continues by citing the words of the beraita: d.

The goat

of the congregation’s sin-offering, brought for an unwitting transgression of

idolatry,

precedes the goat

of the

ruler!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason? This one,

the goat for idolatry, is a communal offering,

whereas this one,

and

if

this one,

the goat of a king, is an individual offering,

and

the offering of the community takes precedence over the offering of an individual.

He.

The goat of a king takes precedence over the she-goat of an individual!

What is the reason? This one is a king, and this one is an ordinary person.

And

the she-goat of an individual takes precedence over the ewe of an individual!

[For the reason that will be explained below.]

And the Gemara raises a contradiction:

But it was taught

the opposite, that

the ewe of an individual takes precedence over the she-goat of an individual

[for the reason that will be explained below]!

Abaye said: It is a dispute between tannaim,

who disagreed as to which of them takes precedence:

One holds that the she-goat is preferable, since it was additionally included

so that it may be offered even

in the case of idolatry committed by an individual,

and therefore it is offered before the ewe, which is not offered by an individual who sinned with idolatry, but only for other transgressions.

And one holds that the ewe is preferable, since it was additionally included

in that it is offered with something more than the she-goat,

in

the offering of

its tail.

Therefore it is offered before the she-goat, which does not require the offering of a tail.

7. The offering of the meal offering of

the Omer

is performed

before the ewe that comes with it.

8.

The two loaves take precedence over the sheep that come with them 10 .

This is the principle

with regard to the meal offering of the Omer and the two loaves:

That which comes because of the day,

the Omer offering or the two loaves, which are the mitzvot of the day,

takes precedence over that which comes because of the bread.

That is, the Omer meal offering takes precedence over bringing the ewe that comes because of the Omer. And offering the two loaves takes precedence over offering the two sheep that come because of the two loaves.

Mishna:

A man takes precedence over a woman with regard to saving life,

when it is necessary to save both of them from death.

And

likewise a man takes precedence over a woman

with regard to returning a lost item,

meaning that one must give precedence to returning the man’s lost item, because a man is obligated in all the mitzvot, whereas a woman is exempt from positive time-bound mitzvot.

And a woman takes precedence over a man with regard to clothing,

because her embarrassment is greater than the man’s.

And likewise a woman takes precedence

with regard to freeing her from captivity,

lest the gentiles violate her. However,

when both are exposed to sexual violation,

so that there is concern for the man because of male homosexual relations,

the man takes precedence over the woman,

because a woman is accustomed to this, and her embarrassment is not as great as the man’s embarrassment in the case of male homosexual relations.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If he, his father, and his teacher were in captivity,

and he had money sufficient to redeem only one person,

he takes precedence over his teacher.

And in the Kuntres Shiurim [Pesachim, section 5] he noted that there is certainly no permission to kill the less sanctified person by hand in order to save the more sanctified one, for we say: “What did you see that his blood is dearer?” Likewise, a person must surrender his life even if he is the more sanctified one, rather than kill even the least of the minors of Israel. But when both are before him, the more sanctified person takes precedence for saving, while the other dies through passive inaction. He suggested that the reason is the uncertainty: perhaps in truth the blood of the more sanctified person is dearer, and it is only because of the uncertainty that one may not kill the less sanctified person by hand in order to save the more sanctified one. It follows from his words that the laws of precedence in sustaining a person apply only when a third person must sustain one of the two. However, one who is redeeming a captive with regard to himself is not obligated by the laws of precedence because of the uncertainty; he takes precedence in saving his own life, since the other person does not die through his action, and he is not obligated to save the other and die in his place. And if he had money to redeem one additional person—

his teacher takes precedence over his father!

This law was cited in the Shulchan Arukh [Yoreh De’ah 242:34] with regard to returning their lost property and redeeming them from captivity, and below [251:9] with regard to sustaining them. There is, however, a distinction between these laws: With regard to returning lost property, if his father is equal in wisdom to his teacher, his father’s lost property takes precedence. But if he is a sage, though not equal to his teacher, his teacher takes precedence. In contrast, with regard to redeeming them and sustaining them, if his father is a Torah scholar, he takes precedence over his teacher even if he is not equal to him in wisdom. But with regard to a person greater than oneself who is not one’s teacher, even if one’s father is not a sage, one’s father takes precedence. Thus the Shakh explained the distinctions between the laws. See the Tur [at the end of section 242], which wrote this in the name of the Rosh, and this is how it was explained and this was likewise explained in the Beit Yosef. And the Perisha explained that the reason for the distinction is that with regard to rescue, a son is obligated to save his father, who is a sage, before any other person. But in the case of lost property, which involves only monetary loss, there is no harm if he departs slightly from his father’s wishes and gives precedence to his teacher, who is greater than him. Maimonides also appears to have contradicted himself concerning this law. In the Laws of Torah Study (5:1), he wrote that if one found his father’s lost property and his teacher’s lost property, and his father was a sage, even though he was not equal to his teacher, his father’s lost property takes precedence. Yet in the Laws of Robbery and Lost Property (12:1), he wrote that this is so only if his father was equal to his teacher, in which case his father’s lost property takes precedence. Likewise, he contradicted himself concerning redemption, between the Laws of Torah Study [there] and the Laws of Gifts to the Poor [there]; and in the glosses of Maimonides, the reading in both places was that his father was equal to his teacher. ruling on this matter. In the Laws of Torah Study [5:1] he wrote that if a person saw his father’s lost property and his teacher’s lost property, and his father was a sage, even if he was not equal to his teacher, his father’s lost property takes precedence. But in the Laws of Robbery and Lost Property [12:1] he wrote that this is so only if his father was equal to his teacher. He likewise contradicted himself regarding redemption, between the Laws of Torah Study [there] and the Laws of Gifts to the Poor [there]. In the glosses of Maimonides, the text in both places reads that his father was equal to his teacher The Kesef Mishne explained this as above. [See there, and in Shiltei Gibborim on Bava Metzia and in the Mabit, part I, responsum 63, for an additional distinction between one’s primary teacher and an ordinary teacher.] However, the Lechem Mishne made a different distinction: In the Laws of Torah Study, the case is one in which he has the ability to return both lost objects and redeem both people, and the question is who takes precedence. But in the other laws, the case is one in which he has the ability to fulfill the mitzva for only one of them; the question is then to whom he should give it. It is certainly preferable that the honor of Torah not be entirely lost, and therefore he does not redeem his father unless he is equal to his teacher. He did not distinguish between lost property and redemption. And in Derekh Emuna [chapter 8 of Gifts to the Poor, subsection 125] he proved from the words of the Rema [Yoreh De’ah 257; see there] that the precedence of one’s teacher and father in charity [and in redemption?] applies specifically to an individual who gives from his own pocket. But a charity collector may not give them precedence; rather, he follows the order of precedence of a sage, a man, a woman, and so forth. This was already written in the responsa of Chakham Tzvi [responsum 20]; see also the following note. It is appropriate to add that the precedence of a kohen—a member of the priestly family who served in the Temple—does not belong to the laws of precedence involving one’s father and teacher. Regarding one’s father and teacher, there is an obligation to honor them even when they are by themselves. Regarding a kohen, by contrast, we established above that there is no obligation to honor him except in order to distinguish him from those of lesser status, and this applies only when he is present with them. The practical difference concerns an individual who redeems a captive: he is obligated to redeem his father and teacher, but not to redeem a kohen. Therefore, both of them take precedence over a kohen, and only afterward does the second order of precedence begin, which also applies to a charity administrator. Chakham Tsvi [section 20]. See also the next note. It is worth adding that the precedence of a kohen is unrelated to the laws of precedence involving one’s father and teacher. With regard to one’s father and teacher, there is an obligation to honor them even when they are by themselves; whereas with regard to a kohen, as we proved above, there is no obligation to honor him except in order to distinguish him from those beneath him, and this is possible only when he is present together with them. The practical consequence concerns an individual who redeems a captive: He is obligated to redeem his father and teacher, but not to redeem a kohen. Therefore, his father and teacher both take precedence over the kohen, after which the second order of precedence begins, which also applies to a charity collector.

And if his mother was also in captivity, the redemption of

his mother takes precedence over everyone,

even over redeeming himself [where there is no danger to his life], lest the gentiles come upon her .

A sage takes precedence

in sustaining him and redeeming him

be

fore

a king of Israel.

For

when a sage dies, we have no one equal to him.

Whereas

when a king of Israel dies,

there are

all of Israel who are fit for kingship

in his place.

A king takes precedence over a high priest.

As it is stated

in the account of Solomon’s anointing as king over Israel (I Kings 1): “

And King

David

said to them,

to Zadok the kohen, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah son of Jehoiada:

‘Take with you the servants of your lord,’

and David’s intention in saying “your lord” was to refer to himself.

This implies that King David called himself “lord” even in relation to Zadok the high priest!

A high priest takes precedence over a prophet.

As it is stated

in the same account of Solomon’s anointing: “

And he shall anoint him,

Solomon,

there, Zadok the kohen and Nathan the prophet.”

Thus

he gave precedence

to

Zadok,

the high priest,

over Nathan,

the prophet.

And it says,

another source that a high priest takes precedence over a prophet (Zechariah 3):

“Hear now, Joshua the high priest, you and your companions!”

One might have thought:

“Your companions”—

were they ordinary people?

The verse states: “For they are men of wondrous sign.” And

only a man who is a

prophet is called a man of wondrous sign. As it is stated

in the passage concerning the test of a true or false prophet (Deuteronomy 13):

“And he gives you a sign or a wondrous sign.”

Thus the verse gave precedence to Joshua the high priest over his companions, the prophets.

A high priest who is

anointed with the anointing oil takes precedence over

a high priest who is not anointed, but is merely

one with many garments

alone. A high priest who serves while he is

one with many garments

without having been anointed is

prior to an anointed high priest [

that is, to a high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil, but

who was removed

from his priestly service temporarily

because of

ritual impurity resulting from

seminal emission.

A high priest

anointed with the anointing oil who was removed

from his service

because of

ritual impurity resulting from

seminal emission

takes

precedence

over an anointed high priest who was removed

because of a physical defect

that occurred to him. Since the one who became impure can purify himself from his impurity, whereas the one who developed a physical defect cannot correct his defect.

The High Priest

anointed for war,

even though

he was removed from office because of a physical defect,

he nevertheless

takes precedence over the anointed priest of war.

This is because the anointed priest of war is not a High Priest in every respect, since he was not appointed to perform the Temple service.

A

priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy

High Priest .

The deputy

High Priest

takes precedence over the amarcal,

the priest appointed over all seven priests who held the keys to the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara explains:

What is the meaning of “amarcal”?

Rav Ḥisda said:

It is an abbreviation of

“amar kula,”

meaning “he says everything,” for he tells all the priests what to do, and no one may contradict his instructions.

The amarcal takes precedence over the treasurer,

who is appointed over the Temple treasuries.

The treasurer takes precedence over the head of a watch.

The head of a watch takes precedence over the head of a paternal house,

one of the families within each watch.

The head of a paternal house takes precedence over an ordinary priest.

This concludes the beraita. The order of precedence in the beraita applies with regard to redemption and saving a person’s life, but not with regard to every matter. Therefore—

They raised a dilemma: With regard to ritual impurity,

for a priest is obligated to render himself impure for a met mitzva in order to bring it to burial, if a

deputy

High Priest

and an anointed priest of war

encountered a met mitzva together,

which of them takes precedence?

Which of them is preferable to render himself impure and attend to the burial of the deceased?

Rav Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: Come and hear

from

that which is taught: If a deputy and an anointed priest of war were traveling on the road and encountered a met mitzva, it is preferable that the anointed priest of war render himself impure rather than the deputy, for if the High Priest should become disqualified, the deputy enters and serves in his place.

Therefore, although the status of the anointed priest of war is higher than that of the deputy, it is preferable that he render himself impure for the met mitzva, because he is not destined to serve, whereas the deputy is destined to serve if he becomes impure or if the High Priest becomes disqualified.

The Gemara challenges this:

But it is taught

the opposite:

Anointed priest of war takes precedence over the deputy!

The wording of the beraita indicates that in every matter the status of the anointed priest of war is superior to that of the deputy, even with regard to the question of which of them should first render himself impure for a met mitzva: it is preferable that the deputy render himself impure, since his status is lower!?

The Gemara answers:

Ravina said: When that

beraita states that the anointed priest of war takes precedence over the deputy, it is

only with regard to saving his life,

and not in other matters!

Mishna:

A priest takes precedence over a Levite

with regard to saving his life and honoring him.

A Levite

takes precedence

over an Israelite.

An Israelite takes precedence over a mamzer. And a mamzer takes precedence over a netin

[the Gibeonites who were assigned to hew wood and draw water].

And a netin takes precedence over a convert. And a convert takes precedence over an emancipated slave.

The reasons for these orders of precedence will be explained in the Gemara.

When

does one give precedence according to this order?

When they are all equal.

But if the mamzer is a Torah scholar and the High Priest is an ignoramus,

precedence does not depend on lineage or sanctity; rather,

the mamzer who is a Torah scholar

takes precedence over the High Priest who is an ignoramus,

because wisdom takes precedence over all lines of lineage.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the Mishna:

A priest takes precedence over a Levite, as it is stated

in Chronicles I:

“The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses. And Aaron was set apart

from the other sons of Amram, the Levites,

to sanctify him as most holy.”

That is, he was set apart for the priesthood, which is a higher status than the Levite status.

A Levite takes precedence over an Israelite, as it is stated

in Deuteronomy:

“At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi,” and so on.

An Israelite takes precedence over a mamzer —

because

this one,

the Israelite, is

of valid lineage,

as all the generations preceding him were born to their parents in accordance with the law,

whereas

this one,

the mamzer,

is

not of valid lineage,

because either he or one of his ancestors was conceived through a transgression.

A mamzer takes precedence over a netin,

because

this one,

the mamzer,

comes from a valid drop of semen,

having been born to a valid Israelite,

whereas this

netin

comes from an invalid drop of semen,

having been born to a gentile, whose father himself has an inferior status.

A netin takes precedence over a convert,

because

this one,

the netin,

was raised with us in sanctity,

as the Gibeonites served as hewers of wood and drawers of water among the Jewish people, despite the fact that their conversion was not accepted.

Whereas this one,

the convert,

was not raised with us in sanctity,

because until he converted he was raised among the gentiles.

A convert takes precedence over an emancipated slave,

because

this one,

the slave,

was included among the accursed,

for every slave is included in the category of “accursed.” Noah wished to curse Ham with a severe curse, and therefore he made Canaan, Ham’s son, a slave. This proves that there is no curse greater than this.

Whereas

this one,

the convert,

was

not included among the “accursed.”

We learned in the Mishna:

When

does one follow this order of levels?

When they are all equal, and so on.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

derived—that the status of Torah takes precedence over all lines of lineage?

Rav Aḥa bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: The verse states

concerning Torah, in Proverbs:

“It is more precious than pearls.”

And we expound: “Precious” refers to a Torah scholar who studies Torah, more

than a High Priest who enters within the innermost sanctuary.

Thus, the status conferred by a Torah scholar’s Torah is superior to that of a High Priest.