Horayot 13a — 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 comes first!

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters?

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

For 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, like the bull of the anointed priest, which was written before it in the passage. Therefore, the bull of the priest is called “the first bull.”

And the beraita discusses:

What does the verse come to teach by saying

“as he burned the

first bull”?

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 be

before the bull of the congregation in all its procedures!

[According to Rashi’s version, it 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 be before the bull of the congregation in all its procedures.]

The Sages taught:

These are the laws of precedence.

1.

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

which were

standing

ready for sacrifice —

the bull of the anointed priest comes before the bull of the congregation in all its procedures!

And the reason for the matter is:

Since the anointed priest atones

through his service,

and the congregation is atoned for

through the bull performed by him,

it is the law that the offering that atones

precede

the bringing of the offering of the

one who is

atoned for.

That is, it is preferable that the anointed priest first be atoned for through bringing his offering, because he is the one who atones for the congregation [through his service with the bull of the congregation], after he himself has already been atoned for.

And so it says

concerning the service of the Day of Atonement, that first the priest who atones is himself atoned for, and afterward those for whom he atones are atoned for. As it is stated [Leviticus 16], “

And the High Priest shall atone

for

himself

first.

And

afterward, he shall atone

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

2.

The bull for an unwitting matter of the community

brought for the other transgressions [apart from idolatry],

comes before the bull for

the community brought for an unwitting matter concerning

idolatry!

And the Gemara explains the second part of the beraita:

What is the reason

that the bull for an unwitting matter concerning the other commandments comes before 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 comes before the burnt-offering in every circumstance, even when two people brought them [and therefore the same applies to the communal bulls, which came for two separate obligations: the sin-offering bull comes before the burnt-offering]. For it is stated in the passage concerning people obligated to bring a graduated offering [such as for a false oath], [Leviticus 5], that they are obligated to bring a female sheep or a female goat as a sin-offering. And if their means did not suffice 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 to be 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, below],

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

And the second verse that follows 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]; and effecting atonement comes before bringing the gift, because before effecting atonement it is impossible to bring a gift.

Rather,

since the first verse is superfluous,

this is a foundational derivation

to say

that all sin-offerings precede the burnt-offerings that come 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,

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

And we do not find any 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 proven from here that the intent 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 this manner, the reason that the atonement should precede the gift does not apply; rather, the sacrifice of the sin-offering comes first because it is more sacred than a burnt-offering.

And from here we learn that likewise, with a communal sin-offering bull and a communal burnt-offering bull, even though they come for two separate obligations, it is nevertheless necessary to give precedence to the sin-offering bull over the burnt-offering bull.

3.

The bull for idolatry

of the congregation, which is a burnt-offering,

comes before the goat for idolatry

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

And the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita, that the bull for idolatry comes before the goat for idolatry that comes with it:

Why

does the bull come before the goat? For

this

goat

is a sin-offering,

whereas

this

bull

is a burnt-offering?

?

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

of the community, which comes for

idolatry,

is written in the Torah with

the letter

missing,

the alef,

for [Numbers 15] “

for a sin-offering” is written

concerning it. This omission comes to teach us that there is a deficiency in the status of this sin-offering: it does not atone 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 comes first for sacrifice is

because it is written concerning it

there: “And the entire congregation shall make one bull of the herd as a burnt-offering

according to the law,

and a male goat as a sin-offering.” The verse comes to introduce and say that with idolatry the burnt-offering and the sin-offering must be sacrificed specifically according to the law written in this passage, namely, according to 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

the sin-offering of the congregation, brought for unwitting

idolatry,

comes before the goat

of a

ruler!

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason? This one,

the goat of idolatry is a communal offering,

[whereas this one is a] communal [offering].

And

if

this one,

the goat of a ruler, is an individual offering,

[whereas this one is an] individual [offering].

And the offering of the community precedes the offering of the individual.

5.

The ruler’s goat precedes the individual female goat!

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

And

an individual female goat precedes an individual ewe! [

for the reason that will be explained below].

And the Gemara raises a contradiction:

But it was taught

the opposite, that

an individual ewe precedes an individual female goat [

for the reason that will be explained below]!

Abaye said: It is a dispute of tannaim,

who disagreed over which of them precedes:

One Master holds: the female goat is preferable, since it was additionally included

to be offered even

in the case of idolatry by an individual,

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

And one Master holds: the ewe is preferable, since it was additionally included in that it is offered more than a female goat, through the offering of

the tail-fat that it has. Therefore it is offered before the female goat, which does not require the offering of tail-fat.

7. The offering of the meal-offering of

the omer

is performed

before the lamb that comes with it.

8.

The two loaves precede the lambs that come with them 10 .

This is the rule concerning the omer meal-offering 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, precedes that which comes because of the bread. That is, the omer meal-offering precedes the bringing of the lamb that comes because of the omer. And the offering of the two loaves precedes the offering of the two lambs that come because of the two loaves. Mishna: A man precedes a woman for sustaining life, when it is necessary to save both of them from death. And the man likewise precedes the woman in returning a lost object, for one must give precedence to returning the man’s lost object, because the man is obligated in all the mitzvot, whereas a woman is exempt from positive commandments whose performance is time-bound.

before the ewe that comes with it.

8.

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

This is the general rule

with regard to the omer meal offering and the two loaves:

whatever comes because of the day,

the omer offering or the two loaves, which are the offerings of the day,

takes precedence over whatever comes because of the bread.

That is, the omer meal offering takes precedence over the offering of the ewe that comes because of the omer. And the offering of the two loaves takes precedence over the offering of the two ewes that come because of the two loaves.

Mishna:

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

when both must be rescued from death.

And

And the woman precedes the man for clothing,

because her shame is greater than the man’s.

And likewise the woman precedes in taking her out of captivity, lest the gentiles violate her. However, when both are exposed to sexual violation, when there is concern for the man because of male-male intercourse, the man precedes the woman, because a woman is accustomed to this, and her shame is not as great as the shame of the man in male-male intercourse.

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

because her embarrassment is greater than his.

And likewise, the woman takes precedence

in being released from captivity,

because the non-Jews may assault her. However,

when both are at risk of sexual violation,

because the man is at risk of male homosexual assault,

the man takes precedence over the woman,

because a woman is ordinarily subject to this form of assault, and her embarrassment is not as great as the man's embarrassment in the case of male homosexual assault.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: If he, his father, and his teacher were all held captive,

and he had money to redeem only one person,

he takes precedence over his teacher.

And if he had money to redeem an additional person—

his teacher takes precedence over his father!

And if his mother was also held captive,

redeeming his mother takes precedence over everyone,

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

A sage takes precedence

in preserving his life and redeeming him

before

a

king of Israel.

Because

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

But

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 passage concerning the anointing of Solomon as king over Israel [I Kings 1]: “

And King

David

said to them,

to Zadok the priest, 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 that same passage concerning Solomon’s anointing: “

And he shall anoint him,

Solomon,

there, Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet.”

Thus

he placed

Zadok,

the

High

Priest, before

Nathan, the prophet.

And it says,

there is another source that a High Priest takes precedence over a prophet [Zechariah 3]:

“Hear now, Joshua the High Priest, you and your fellows”!

One might have thought that “

your fellows”

were ordinary people.

The verse therefore says: “For they are men of wondrous signs.” And

a person is not called a man of

wondrous signs except for a prophet. 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 placed Joshua the High Priest before his fellow prophets.

A High Priest who is

anointed with the anointing oil takes precedence over

a High Priest who is not anointed but is

clad in many garments

alone. A High Priest serving while

clad in many garments

without having been anointed is

given precedence over an anointed High Priest [

that is, over a High Priest who was anointed with the anointing oil but

was removed

temporarily from his office

because of

ritual impurity caused by

a seminal emission.

A High

Priest who was anointed but was removed

from his office

because of

ritual impurity caused by

a seminal emission

is

given precedence

over an anointed High Priest who was removed

because of a physical blemish that occurred to him. Since the one who became impure can purify himself from his impurity, whereas the one who developed a blemish cannot remedy his blemish.

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.

Kohen gadol

anointed,

despite

having passed from office because of his blemish,

he

takes precedence over the anointed for war. This is because the anointed for war is not a kohen gadol in every respect, for he was not appointed to serve.

This is because the anointed for war is not a High Priest in every respect, since he was not appointed to serve in that capacity.

A

kohen anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy

of the kohen gadol.

The deputy

of the kohen gadol

takes precedence over the amarkal,

who is the kohen appointed over all seven kohanim who held the keys to the Temple courtyard.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “amarkal”?

Rav Hisda said:

It is an abbreviation of

“amar kula,”

for he is the one who tells all the kohanim what to do, and they do not respond to his words.

The amarkal 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

of one of the families in each watch.

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

This is the end of the beraita. The order of precedence in the beraita concerns redemption and rescue, but not every matter. Therefore—

It was asked of them: With regard to impurity,

for the kohen is obligated to render himself impure for an unattended corpse in order to bring it to burial, if

the deputy

of the kohen gadol and

the anointed for war

encountered an unattended corpse together,

which of them takes precedence?

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

Rav Zutra son of Rav Nahman said: ta shma

from this

as it was taught: If the deputy and the anointed for war were walking on the road and encountered an unattended corpse, it is preferable that the anointed for war render himself impure and that the deputy not render himself impure, for if an invalidity should occur in the kohen gadol, the deputy enters and serves in his place.

Therefore, although the status of the anointed for war is higher than that of the deputy, it is preferable that he render himself impure for the unattended corpse, because he is not destined to serve, whereas the deputy is destined to serve if he becomes impure or if an invalidity occurs in the kohen gadol.

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught

the opposite:

The anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy!

It follows from the language of the beraita that in every matter the status of the anointed for war is preferable to that of the deputy, and even concerning the question of who takes precedence in rendering himself impure for an unattended corpse, it is preferable that the deputy render himself impure, since his status is lower!?

And we answer:

Ravina said: When that

beraita, which states that the anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy,

was taught,

it was only with regard to sustaining his life!

The Mishna:

A kohen takes precedence over a Levite

for sustaining his life and honoring him.

A Levite

takes precedence

over an Israelite.

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

[the Gibeonites who were given over to chopping wood and drawing water].

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

The reasons for the precedence will be explained in the Gemara.

When

do they give precedence in this order?

When they are all equal.

But if a mamzer is a Torah scholar and a kohen gadol is an ignoramus,

the precedence does not depend on lineage and sanctity, but

a mamzer who is a Torah scholar

takes precedence over a kohen gadol who is an ignoramus,

because wisdom takes precedence over all lineages.

Gemara:

The Gemara explains the Mishna:

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

[I Chronicles 23]

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

from the other sons of Amram, the Levites,

to sanctify him as most holy”!

That is, through the priesthood, which is a greater status than the Levite status.

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

[Deuteronomy 10]

“At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi.” And so on.

An Israelite takes precedence over a mamzer—

because

this one,

the Israelite, is

of valid lineage,

for all the generations before him were born to their parents according to law,

whereas

if

this one,

the mamzer,

is not of valid lineage,

because he, or one of his ancestors, was created through a transgression.

A mamzer takes precedence over a netin,

because

this one,

the mamzer,

comes from a valid drop,

for he was born from a valid Israelite,

whereas this

netin

comes from an invalid drop,

for he was born from a gentile, and his father himself is disqualified.

A netin takes precedence over a convert,

because

this one,

the netin,

grew up with us in sanctity,

for they served as woodcutters and water drawers within the people of Israel, despite the fact that their conversion was not accepted.

Whereas this

the convert

did not grow up with us in sanctity,

for until he converted he grew up 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 among the “accursed,” since Noah wished to curse Ham with a great curse and therefore made Canaan, the son of Ham, a slave. And it is proven that there is no greater curse than this.

Whereas

if

this one,

the convert,

was not included among the “accursed.”

We learned in the Mishna:

When

do we follow this order of levels,

when they are all equal, and so on.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that the status of Torah takes precedence over all lineages?

Rav Aha son of Rabbi Hanina said: For the verse says

concerning Torah [Proverbs 3]:

“She is more precious than rubies.”

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

than a kohen gadol who enters within and within.

Thus, the status of the Torah of a Torah scholar is preferable to that of a kohen gadol.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: By rights, a freed slave should precede a convert,

based on the reasoning stated regarding a natin:

for this

slave

grew up with us in holiness, whereas this

convert

did not grow up with us in holiness.

Rather,

even so, the convert precedes the slave, for the reason stated:

this

slave

was included among the accursed, whereas this

convert

was not included among the accursed.

Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Tzadok’s students asked him: Why does everyone hasten to marry a female convert,

for they are more willing to marry a female convert,

but not everyone hastens to marry

a

freed

slave woman, even though she grew up with us in holiness and is closer to us than a female convert?

He said to them: This

freed slave woman

was included among the accursed, whereas this

female convert

was not included among the accursed.

Alternatively: This

female convert

was presumed chaste,

for it was retroactively revealed that she had guarded herself, since she had intended to convert.

But

if

this

slave woman

was not presumed chaste,

but was promiscuous, since it was not in her power to become free, and she does not guard herself.

Rabbi Elazar’s students asked him: Why does a dog recognize its master,

for it settles in with its owner,

whereas a cat does not recognize its master,

for it does not tend to maintain a relationship with its owner?

He said to them:

It is a kal va-homer:

Just as

a person

who eats what a mouse eats forgets

[he forgets his learning, as below]

one who eats the mouse itself,

as is the cat’s manner, to prey upon it,

all the more so

will he forget even his master.

Rabbi Elazar’s students asked him: Why does everyone exercise dominion over mice,

for they are pursued constantly more than other living creatures?

He said to them:

Because their disposition is evil.

For their inclination [called “sar”] is worse than that of others.

And we explain:

What is it?

Rava said:

Because we see that the manner of mice is that

even garments,

clothing that is not food,

they gnaw,

they bite them.