Sanhedrin 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Yitzhak, to his father:

“Like whom,”

like whom?

Rav Yehuda said to his son:

Rav Yitzhak:

“Like your mother,”

who was my wife in my youth, and I found contentment in her.

The Gemara raises an objection:

“Is that so!”

But this is not so,

for

on another occasion

Rav Yehuda read

this verse aloud before

Rav Yitzhak, his son

: “

And I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets.”

And

Rav Yitzhak said to his father:

“Like whom,”

like whom—that is, who is the woman comparable to snares and nets, and who is more bitter than death?

And

Rav Yehuda said to his son:

“Like your mother?!”

The Gemara answers: Indeed, both statements are true.

She was forceful,

she was a forceful woman, but

she was easily appeased in speech,

she was amenable to reconciliation and forgiving of affronts.

Rav Shmuel bar Unya said in the name of Rav: A woman

before her marriage

is an unformed object,

like an unfinished vessel,

and she establishes a bond

of love and friendship

only with the one who made her into a vessel.

That is, with her first husband, who completed her formation. As

it is stated: “

For your husbands are your makers; the Lord of Hosts is His name.”

In this verse, the Jewish people are compared to a young bride, as it were, before the Holy One, blessed be He, and it says there, “your husbands are your makers”; thus, the one who has relations with a woman makes her into a vessel.

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

A man dies only for his wife, and a woman dies only for her husband,

meaning that they are the ones who truly suffer and mourn.

And we expound from verses:

A man dies only for his wife,

as

it is stated: “

And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died.”

And a woman dies only for her husband,

as

it is stated

that Jacob our forefather said: “

And I, when I came from Paddan-aram, Rachel died over me,”

that is, she died because of me.

We learned in our Mishna:

One may not see him

when he is having his hair cut.

The Sages taught: A king has his hair cut

as it is a mitzva for him to have it cut

every day.

A High Priest

has his hair cut

from one Sabbath eve to the next Sabbath eve,

and he may not delay longer than this.

An ordinary priest

has his hair cut

once every thirty days.

The Gemara explains the beraita, and the reason for the different requirements applying to a king, a High Priest, and an ordinary priest.

A king has his hair cut every day,

because

it is stated: “Your eyes shall behold the king in his beauty.”

A High Priest

has his hair cut

on the Sabbath eve

before the next Sabbath eve.

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥman said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the priestly watches

of the priests

are renewed

and change every Sabbath, he has his hair cut on the Sabbath eve so that the incoming watch will see him in his beauty.

An ordinary priest

has his hair cut

once every thirty days, as it is written

in the Book of Ezekiel, in his prophecy concerning the priests: “

And they shall not shave their heads

the side-locks of the head

and they shall not send forth their hair

they shall not allow it to grow excessively

but they shall keep their heads trimmed.”

The Gemara will explain this.

And he derives

and they derive this by means of a gzera shava:

“Wild growth” from “wild growth” from a nazirite; here it is written

concerning the priests

“they shall not send forth wild growth,” and there it is written

concerning a nazirite: “

He shall grow wild the hair of his head.”

Just as there

with regard to a nazirite, who is required to grow wild hair, it is growth of at least

thirty days, so too here,

with regard to the priests, who are forbidden to grow wild hair, it is growth of

thirty

days.

And we also learned

and so too we learned in our Mishna in tractate Nazir:

The unspecified naziriteship

is for

thirty days.

And there

with regard to a nazirite,

from where do we know

from which exposition did the Mishna derive that it is for thirty days?

Rav Mattana said: For the verse states

in the passage concerning a nazirite: “

He shall be holy

he shall grow wild the hair of his head”; the word “shall be”

has the numerical value of thirty,

its numerical value being thirty.

And concerning this exposition from the verse “And they shall not shave their heads and they shall not send forth wild growth,” the Gemara raises the possibility that the prophet Ezekiel intended that they should not grow wild hair even for thirty days.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

Why did the beraita say that an ordinary priest has his hair cut at the end of thirty days?

Say,

it is possible to say that the prophet intended:

“They shall not grow it at all,”

that they are forbidden to grow it even for thirty days.

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

If it were written

if the verse had said: “

They shall not send forth wild growth,”

we would expound

as

you

said,

according to your interpretation: “They shall not send forth”—they are forbidden to grow—“wild growth,” until the measure of wild growth, which is thirty days. But

according to your words: “They shall not let grow” means that they are forbidden to let it grow—“wild growth” until the measure of wild growth, which is thirty days. But

now

now that

it is written: “

And wild growth

they shall not send forth,” the meaning is:

“Wild growth”

that has already grown to the measure of wild growth

may exist;

he is permitted to grow it, but beyond that,

they shall not send it forth further,

they may not grow it.

The Gemara now discusses why priests nowadays, when there is no Temple, are permitted to grow wild hair.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that the prohibition is learned from a scriptural decree,

nowadays

in our times

also,

they should likewise be forbidden to grow their hair?

The Gemara answers: Since immediately adjacent to this verse it is stated, “And no priest shall drink wine when they enter the inner court,” we learn

by comparison with wine

that its law is similar to the prohibition against drinking wine:

Just as

the drinking of

wine at the time of entering

when the Temple is standing, when they enter there to perform the sacred service,

is

forbidden,

whereas

when not entering it is permitted,

it is permitted,

so too, those with unkempt hair are forbidden when entering, and permitted when not entering.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

is it the case that

wine when not entering is permitted? But it was taught

in a beraita that indicates that priests are forbidden to drink wine even when they are not entering?!

The priests were divided into twenty-four watches, each watch serving for one week, namely, from one Sabbath to the next. Each watch was divided into seven paternal houses, each of which served for one day.

And it was taught there in a beraita: Any priest who nowadays knows his watch and the paternal house of his watch—that is, according to the schedule, the day on which he would have been fit to serve—is forbidden to drink wine for that entire day. If he knows his watch but does not know his paternal house, he is forbidden to drink for that entire week. And if he knows neither his watch nor his paternal house, he is forbidden to drink wine throughout the entire year.

The reason is that since we anticipate that the Temple will soon be rebuilt, he must be prepared for the Temple service; and a priest who is intoxicated with wine is disqualified from the service, and his service is rendered invalid.

The continuation of the beraita is:

Rabbi says: I say

that if we are concerned about this, the law should be that all

priests

should be

forbidden to drink wine forever,

throughout the entire year, even if he knows that now is not the time of his watch, because “the Temple may soon be rebuilt,” and no other priests may be found, or perhaps the order of the watches will change and he will be required to serve.

However,

Rabbi complains:

“What can I do, when their remedy is their ruin?”

That is, the disruption of the order of the watches, because the priests do not know their watches, is their remedy, enabling them to drink wine throughout the entire year. He is not concerned to enact a prohibition against drinking wine on account of the possibility that the Temple will soon be rebuilt.

And Abaye said: According to whom do the priests drink wine nowadays,

according to whose opinion do the priests who drink wine now conduct themselves?

According to Rabbi!

By inference

these words imply [and the beraita there states this explicitly],

the Rabbis,

the other tannaim,

forbid,

they prohibit priests from drinking wine nowadays. If so, it is difficult: why did they say that just as they are permitted to drink wine, they are likewise permitted to grow wild hair? According to the Rabbis, are they not forbidden to drink wine?

The Gemara answers: By Torah law, they are forbidden to drink wine only at the time of entering, and nowadays it is permitted; therefore, growing wild hair is also permitted. However, the Rabbis enacted a decree prohibiting drinking wine nowadays, but they did not enact a decree prohibiting the growth of wild hair. The reason they enacted a decree prohibiting drinking wine is:

There,

with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine,

this is the reason

the Sages enacted the decree: because of

the possibility that the Temple will soon be rebuilt, and we require

a priest fit for the service. And

we need him to be [prepared],

and

if he is intoxicated with wine,

there is no

priest who can perform the service.

The Gemara raises an objection: If so,

here too,

with regard to growing wild hair, the Sages should enact the same decree, saying:

“We require a priest fit for the service, and there is none,”

since he cannot serve with overgrown hair.

The Gemara answers:

Here,

with regard to growing wild hair, if the Messiah were to arrive suddenly at his sanctuary,

it is possible

for the priest still

to cut his hair

and

enter,

and enter the Temple.

The Gemara raises an objection:

There too,

even if he is intoxicated with wine,

it is possible that he could sleep a little,

he can sleep somewhat,

and enter

and enter the Temple, since sleep dispels the effects of wine?

For Rav Aḥa said:

Traveling

a distance

of

a mil

or

any amount of sleep—

dispel the effects of wine.

The Gemara answers: What was said—that traveling a mil and any amount of sleep dispel the effects of wine—applies only to a small amount of drinking; but in the case of extensive drinking, they do not dispel the effects of the wine.

But is it not

the case that

it was stated concerning it

when we explained Rav Aḥa’s statement:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

that they dispel the effects of wine

only

if he

drank a small amount,

the measure of a quarter-log;

but if he drank

more than the measure of a quarter-log,

not only do they fail to dispel its effects, but

all the more so, traveling disturbs him

and confuses him,

and sleep intoxicates him.

Consequently, the distinction is clear: With regard to drinking wine, the Sages enacted a decree lest he be intoxicated and the Temple be rebuilt shortly, leaving him unable to dispel the effects of his wine. But with regard to overgrown hair, they did not enact a decree, because he can easily cut his hair and perform the service.

Rav Ashi makes another distinction: The prohibition against serving while intoxicated with wine is more severe than the prohibition against serving with overgrown hair. Therefore, the Sages enacted a decree nowadays with regard to drinking wine, but did not enact one with regard to growing wild hair.

Rav Ashi said: Those intoxicated with wine invalidate from the language of non-sacred, ordinary—the

service,

meaning that their service is invalid and the offering is invalid; therefore

the Rabbis enacted a decree concerning them

that they are forbidden to drink wine even nowadays. Whereas

those with overgrown hair do not invalidate the service;

therefore

the Rabbis did not enact a decree concerning them.

It is stated in the Torah: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying: Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, lest you die.” And afterward it is written: “And to distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” which implies: between sacred service and service rendered profane. Thus, a priest who served while intoxicated with wine renders his service profane. But concerning a priest who served with overgrown hair, it is not stated that his service is rendered profane—even though he violated a prohibition—and therefore the Sages did not enact a decree concerning it nowadays.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi; according to the one raising the objection, priests with overgrown hair who served also render their service profane.

It was objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

And these

are the transgressions

whose

punishment is

death

at the hands of Heaven:

those with overgrown hair and those intoxicated with wine.

The Gemara proves this:

Granted, with regard to those intoxicated with wine,

their punishment is death at the hands of Heaven,

as it is written: “

Do not drink wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, lest you die,”

which means, so that you shall not die; this implies that if they serve while intoxicated with wine, they will die. [The reference is not to execution by a court, since in that case it should have explicitly stated: “He shall surely be put to death.”]

But with regard to those with overgrown hair, from where do we derive it,

from where do we know that their punishment is death at the hands of Heaven?

Necessarily,

they were juxtaposed,

they were compared,

those intoxicated with wine to those with overgrown hair,

since they are written together in the Book of Ezekiel.

It is written: “And they shall not shave their heads and they shall not send forth wild growth.” And it is written

after it

later: “

And no priest shall drink wine

when they enter the inner court”; therefore the Sages expounded:

Just as those intoxicated with wine are liable to death,

so too those with overgrown hair are liable to death.

All this is explained in another sugya. The one raising the objection now asks:

And from it

from that comparison it is possible to expound:

Just as

those intoxicated with wine invalidate

because they invalidate

the service, so too those with overgrown hair invalidate

invalidate

the service,

since if they were compared, they were compared in every respect.

This is difficult for Rav Ashi, who answered and distinguished that those intoxicated with wine invalidate the service, whereas those with overgrown hair do not invalidate the service.

The Gemara concludes: Indeed,

it is difficult.

It is difficult for Rav Ashi.

And once we have learned by comparison from the biblical passage in the Book of Ezekiel that just as those intoxicated with wine are liable to death, so too those with overgrown hair, Ravina asks: How can it be possible to derive a law from the Book of Ezekiel?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This

law, that those with overgrown hair are liable to death,

before

Ezekiel came,

who stated it,

who stated this law? Is it not written in the Torah?!

Rav Ashi answered him:

But according to your reasoning,

according to you, who raised this question, why did you not raise it concerning

that which Rav Ḥisda said

about the beraita cited above, which states that an uncircumcised priest who was not circumcised because of circumstances beyond his control—for example, his brothers died as a result of circumcision—is disqualified from the service?

And Rav Ḥisda explained:

This matter,

that an uncircumcised priest is disqualified from the service,

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher,

since the Torah did not write it,

until Ezekiel came and taught it to us.

For it is written there in the Book of Ezekiel: “

Any foreigner, uncircumcised of heart

a priest whose deeds have become estranged from his Father in Heaven and whose heart is uncircumcised, meaning an apostate,

and uncircumcised of flesh shall not enter

My Sanctuary to serve Me.”

And why did you not raise the question:

“Before Ezekiel came, who stated it?”

who stated this law?

Rather,

why did you not raise the question, knowing that

it was learned as a received tradition,

the law was transmitted as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse,

and supported it with the verse—that is, he wrote it in his book? Therefore,

here too,

the law concerning those with overgrown hair

was learned as a received tradition, and Ezekiel came and supported it with a verse.

(And when the halakha was learned,

it was learned with regard to death; it was not learned with regard to invalidating the service.)

In that verse in the Book of Ezekiel it is written: “They shall keep their heads trimmed.”

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, asks:

What is the meaning of

the phrase

“They shall completely shave their heads”?

A tannait taught—

we learn in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

“Like a spiral haircut.”

What is a spiral haircut?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: “A unique haircut,”

attractive and distinctive.

And the Gemara explains:

What does this mean—

how was it made?

Rav Ashi said: “The tip of

one hair was

beside the root of another,”

so that one hair did not rise above another.

They asked Rabbi: “What is the haircut of the High Priest?” He said to them

—Rabbi said to those who asked him:

“Go and see the haircut of ben Elasa,”

Rabbi’s son-in-law, who was extremely wealthy and spent a great deal of money to learn this haircut.

It was taught

in a beraita:

“Rabbi says: Ben Elasa did not spend his money for nothing; rather, he did so in order to display through himself the haircut of the High Priest.”

We have completed the chapter “The High Priest.”