Sanhedrin 22b — the Talmud in English

He said to him

Rav Yitzhak to his father:

such as whom

like whom?

He said to him

Rav Yehuda to his son:

such as your mother

who was the wife of my youth, and in her I found satisfaction.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so!

But it is not so,

and

yet on another occasion

he read it to him

a verse before him,

Rav Yehuda to Rav Yitzhak his son,

this verse: “

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

And he said to him

Rav Yitzhak to his father:

such as whom

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

And he said to him

Rav Yehuda to his son:

such as your mother?!

The Gemara answers: Indeed, everything is true.

She was forceful,

she was a forceful woman, but

she was readily reconciled in the matter,

she was easy to appease and passed over her measures.

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

before her marriage

is an unformed object,

like a vessel that has not been completed,

and she does not make a covenant

of love and friendship

except with the one who made her 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.”

For in this verse the Children of Israel are compared to a wife of youth, as it were before the Almighty, and it is written there, “your husbands are your makers”; thus, the one who has intercourse with a woman makes her a vessel.

A tannai

we learned in a beraita:

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

that is, they are the true sufferers and mourners.

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,

as our forefather Jacob said: “

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

that is, she died upon him.

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

it is a mitzva incumbent upon him to have his hair cut

every day.

The High Priest

has his hair cut

from one Sabbath eve to the next Sabbath eve

and he should not delay longer than this.

An ordinary priest

has his hair cut

once every thirty days.

The Gemara explains the beraita, and the reason concerning the king, the High Priest, and the ordinary priest.

A king has his hair cut every day,

because

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

The High Priest

has his hair cut

from Sabbath eve

to Sabbath eve.

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since the shifts

of the priests

are renewed

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

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 corners of the head]

and they shall not let their hair grow wild

[they shall not increase in growing hair]

they shall only trim the hair of their heads”

[and the Gemara will explain].

And he derives

and they derive a gzera shava—

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

concerning the priests

“they shall not let their hair grow wild,” and it is written there

concerning a nazirite, “

he shall let the hair of his head grow wild.”

Just as there

concerning a nazirite, who is required to let his hair grow wild, it is growth of at least

thirty days, so here

concerning priests, who are forbidden to let their hair grow wild, it is growth of

thirty

days.

And we also learned

and so we learned in our Mishna in tractate Nazir:

Ordinary naziriteship

is of

thirty days.

And there

concerning the nazirite,

from where do we know

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

Rav Mattana said: For the verse says

in the section of the nazirite: “

Holy he shall be

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

has the numerical value of thirty

in the number thirty.

And concerning this exposition from the verse “And they shall not shave their heads, and they shall not let their hair grow wild,” the Gemara raises the objection that it is possible that the prophet Ezekiel’s intention was that they should not let their hair grow wild even until 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,

for it is possible to say that the prophet’s intention is:

They shall not grow it at all

they are forbidden to let it grow even until thirty days?

He said to him

Abaye to Rav Pappa:

If it were written

if it were written: “

They shall not let their hair grow wild,”

we would expound

as

you

have

said,

you said,

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

at present

that it is written: “

And wild growth

they shall not let grow,” it implies:

wild growth

that has already grown to the measure of wild growth—

let it be,

it is permitted for him to let it grow, whereas more than this,

they shall not let it be sent forth,

they shall not let it grow.

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so,

that the prohibition is learned from a scriptural decree,

nowadays

in our time,

also,

they too should be forbidden to let their hair grow?

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

analogous to wine

whose law is analogous to the prohibition of drinking wine,

just as

drinking

wine at the time of entering

when the Temple exists, when they enter there to perform the sacred service,

is

forbidden,

whereas

when not at the time of entering it is permitted,

it is permitted,

so too, those with untrimmed hair: at the time of entering it is forbidden, and when not at the time of entering it is permitted.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

A

does

wine when not at the time of entering become permitted, yet it was taught

did we not learn a beraita from which it is implied that priests are forbidden to drink wine even when it is not the time of entering?!

The priests were divided into twenty-four shifts, each shift serving for one week, that is, from Sabbath to Sabbath. And each shift was divided into seven ancestral houses, each of which served for one day.

And we learned there in a beraita: Any priest who recognizes nowadays his shift and the shift of his ancestral house—that is, according to the order, today is the day on which it would have been proper for him to serve—is forbidden to drink wine throughout that entire day; and if he recognizes his shift but does not recognize his ancestral house, he is forbidden to drink throughout that entire week; and if he recognizes neither his shift nor his ancestral house, he is forbidden to drink wine throughout the entire year.

And the reason is: 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 unfit for service, and his service is profaned.

And the continuation of the beraita is:

Rabbi says: I say:

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

priests

should be

forbidden to drink wine forever

throughout the entire year, even if he knows that now is not the time of his shift, because “the Temple may soon be rebuilt,” and other priests will not be found, or perhaps the order of the shifts will change, and he will have to serve.

But,

Rabbi complains:

What shall I do, for their remedy is their calamity,

that is, the disruption in the intermingling of the order of the shifts, because the priests do not know their shifts, is their remedy, enabling them to drink wine throughout the entire year. For he is not concerned to decree a prohibition against drinking wine on account of the Temple being rebuilt soon.

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

according to whom do the priests nowadays conduct themselves by drinking wine?

According to Rabbi!

From the implication

these words imply [and so the beraita there wrote explicitly],

that the Rabbis,

the other tannaim,

forbid,

they prohibit priests from drinking wine nowadays. And if so, it is difficult: why did they say that just as drinking wine is permitted, so too letting the hair grow wild is permitted? Is it not the case that according to the Rabbis they are 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 letting the hair grow wild is also permitted. However, the Rabbis decreed concerning drinking wine nowadays, but they did not decree concerning letting the hair grow wild. And the reason that they decreed concerning drinking wine is—

There,

with regard to the prohibition against drinking wine,

this is the reason

that the Sages decreed concerning it: because

the Temple may soon be rebuilt,

and we require

we need that there be [a priest prepared],

a priest fit for service. And

if he is intoxicated with wine,

there is none,

he will be unable to perform the service.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If so,

here too,

with regard to letting the hair grow wild, the Sages should likewise decree and say:

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

since he cannot serve with his hair grown wild.

The Gemara answers:

Here,

with regard to growing the hair wild, if the Messiah should come suddenly to his palace,

it is possible

that the priest still has the possibility

of cutting his hair

to have his hair cut

and enter,

and enter the Temple.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

There too,

even if he is intoxicated with wine,

it is possible that he sleep a little,

he can sleep a little,

and enter

and enter the Temple, for sleep dispels the wine?

For Rav Aḥa said:

Walking

a distance

of

a mil

or

any amount of sleep—

dispel the wine.

The Gemara answers: What they said, that a distance of a mil and any amount of sleep dispel the wine, applies only to a small amount of drinking; but with a large amount of drinking, they do not dispel the wine.

And was it not

the case that

it was stated concerning it

when the words of Rav Aḥa were explained:

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: They taught

that they dispel the wine

only

when he drank

a small measure

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 it, but

all the more so, the road troubles him

and confuses him,

and sleep intoxicates him.

And consequently, the distinction is clear: concerning drinking wine the Sages decreed, lest he be intoxicated and the Temple be rebuilt soon, and he be unable to dispel his wine; but concerning grown hair they did not 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 untrimmed hair; therefore the Sages decreed—nowadays—concerning drinking wine, but they did not decree concerning letting the hair grow wild.

Rav Ashi said: Those intoxicated with wine, who profane

[from the language of ordinary, non-sacred things] the

service,

that is, their service is invalid and the offering is invalid, therefore

the Rabbis decreed concerning them

that even nowadays they are forbidden to drink wine, whereas

those with untrimmed hair, who do not profane the service,

therefore

the Rabbis did not decree concerning them.

It is stated in the Torah: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying: Do not drink wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, so that you shall not die.” And afterward it is written: “And to distinguish between the sacred and the profane,” implying: between sacred service and profaned service. Thus, a priest who served while intoxicated with wine—his service is profaned. But concerning a priest who served with untrimmed hair, it was not said that his service is profaned—even though he transgressed a prohibition—and therefore the Sages did not decree concerning him nowadays.

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Ashi, and according to the one who raises the objection, also the service of those with untrimmed hair who served is profaned.

It was objected

from what we learned in a beraita:

And these are

transgressions

whose

punishment is

death

at the hands of Heaven:

those with untrimmed hair and those intoxicated with wine.

And the Gemara proves:

Granted, those intoxicated with wine,

their punishment is death at the hands of Heaven,

as it is written: “

Do not drink wine or strong drink, you or your sons, so that you shall not die,”

“so that you shall not die” implies that if they serve while intoxicated with wine, they will die [and the intention is not death by a court, for then it should have been written explicitly, “he shall surely be put to death”].

But those with untrimmed hair—from where do we know it,

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

And necessarily,

it was likened

they were compared,

those intoxicated with wine to those with untrimmed hair,

for they are written together in the Book of Ezekiel.

It is written, “And they shall not shave their heads and they shall not let their hair grow wild.” And it is written

after it

following it: “

And no priest shall drink wine

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

Just as those intoxicated with wine are subject to death,

so too those with untrimmed hair are subject to death.

All this is explained in another sugya. And now the one who raises the objection asks:

And from it,

from that same comparison, it is possible to expound:

Just as

those intoxicated with wine, who profane

since they profane

the service, so too those with untrimmed hair, who profane

profane

the service,

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

And it is difficult for Rav Ashi, who answered and distinguished that those intoxicated with wine profane the service, whereas those with untrimmed hair do not profane the service.

The conclusion of the Gemara: Indeed,

it is difficult.

It is difficult for Rav Ashi.

And since we learned through a comparison from the verse in the Book of Ezekiel that just as those intoxicated with wine are subject to death, so too those with untrimmed hair, Ravina asks: How is it possible to learn a law from the Book of Ezekiel?

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This

law, that those with untrimmed hair are subject to death,

until he came

before Ezekiel came,

who said it,

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

Rav Ashi answered him:

And according to your reasoning,

according to your words, since you raised this question, why did you not raise it concerning

that which Rav Ḥisda said

about that beraita brought above, which says that an uncircumcised man who was not circumcised because of circumstances beyond his control, such as when his brothers died because of circumcision, is unfit for service?

And Rav Ḥisda explained:

This matter,

that an uncircumcised priest is unfit for service,

we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher

for the Torah did not write it,

until Ezekiel came and taught it to us.

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

Every son of a foreigner, uncircumcised of heart

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

and uncircumcised of flesh shall not come

to My Sanctuary to serve Me.”

And why did you not ask: “

Until Ezekiel came, who said it?”

Who stated this law?

Rather,

what is the reason that you did not ask, since you know that

it was learned by tradition,

the law was in their possession 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. And therefore,

here too,

also the law concerning those with untrimmed hair

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

(And when they learned the halakha—

it was with regard to death; they did not learn it with regard to profaning the service.)

In that verse in the Book of Ezekiel it is written: “They shall only trim the hair of their heads.”

The Gemara clarifies:

What is

the meaning of “

They shall cut their heads”?

A tanna taught

we learned a beraita:

like a spiral haircut.

What is a spiral haircut?

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

beautiful and distinctive.

And the Gemara explains:

How is it

made?

Rav Ashi said: The head of

one hair

was beside the root of the other,

so that one hair would not rise over its fellow.

They asked Rabbi: What is the haircut of a high priest? He said to them

Rabbi to those who asked him:

Go out and observe the haircut of Ben Elasa,

Rabbi’s son-in-law, who was exceedingly wealthy and spent much money so that they would teach him that haircut.

It was taught

we learned a beraita:

Rabbi says: Ben Elasa did not spend his money for nothing, but rather in order to display upon himself the haircut of a high priest.

We shall return to you, chapter “High Priest.”