Jerusalem Talmud Horayot 3:2

משנה: חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַנּוּ הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ כַהֶדְיוֹט. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אִם נוֹדַע לָהֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ חַייָבִין וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנּוּ פְּטוּרִין. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא הַנָּשִׂיא זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְעָשָׂ֡ה אַחַ֣ת מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת֩ יי אֱלֹהָ֜יו נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו. וְאֵי זֶה הוּא הַמָּשִׁיחַ זֶה הַמָּשׁוּחַ בַּשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְלֹא הַמְרוּבֶּה בִבְגָדִים. אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן הַמָּשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים אֶלָּא פַר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת. וְאֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. זֶה וָזֶה שָׁווִין בַּעֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וּמְצוּוִּין עַל הַבְּתוּלָה וַאֲסוּרִין עַל הָאַלְמָנָה וְאֵינָן מִיטַּמְּאִין בִּקְרוֹבֵיהֶן וְלֹא פוֹרְעִין וְלֹא פוֹרְמִין וּמַחֲזִירִין אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ׃ MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners^1,Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Horayot 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.1.1">Mishnah 2.⁷For the purposes of this sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said⁸Leviticus.4.22">Lev. 4:22., if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb⁹Making the anointing oil was commanded personally to Moses (Exodus.30.25">Ex.30:25). All High Priests up to the time of king Josiah were anointed with it. Since that time, the oil was no longer available; it cannot be reconstituted. The later High Priests were inducted into their office by investiture with the High Priest’s garments..
The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments¹⁰The rules about the High Priest’s purification sacrifice explained in Chapter 2 became obsolete with the destruction of the First Temple and could be restored to validity only if a dig on the Temple Mount would recover the flask containing the original oil. The High Priests of the Second Temple had the status of commoners in this respect.. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement¹¹Which has to be acquired by the High Priest with his own money together with a goat (Leviticus.16.3">Lev. 16:3). and the tenth of an ephah¹²The personal daily offering of the High Priest, Leviticus.6.12-16">Lev. 6:12–16, of about 3.84 l of fine flour..
Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement¹³If the acting High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated, a former High Priest can replace him without special dedication. No common priest can perform any of the prescribed acts of the Day of Atonement., commanded about the virgin¹⁴Leviticus.21.13">Lev. 21:13. This applies only if the High Priest marries while High Priest. If he married a widow while a common priest, he still may be elevated to High Priest., and prohibited for a widow¹⁵Leviticus.21.14">Lev. 21:14., and do not defile themselves for close relatives¹⁶Leviticus.21.11">Lev. 21:11., and may not let their hair grow¹⁷Leviticus.21.10">Lev. 21:10. or rend their garments¹⁸Leviticus.21.10">Lev. 21:10. These are forbidden as mourning rites., and let the homicide return¹⁹Numbers.35.25">Num. 35:25 (where anointing is mentioned), 32 (where anointing is not mentioned)..

הלכה: חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ כול׳. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשֵּׁם שֶׁהַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסֵי. שֶׁאֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. מַה מַפְקָה מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. רֵישָׁא דְפִירְקָא. כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ. וְכֵן נָשִׂיא שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִגְּדוּלָּתוֹ. כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פָר וְהַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר׃ חָֽטְאוּ בְסָפֵק. מָאן דָּמַר. מִשֵּׁם שֶׁהַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הַוַּדַּאי כָּךְ הִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל הַסָּפֵק. מָאן דָּמַר. אֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. אֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. חָֽטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ מִשֶׁנִּתְמַנּוּ עָֽבְרוּ. מָאן דָּמַר. מִשֵּׁם שֶׁהַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. כִּיפְּרָה גְּדוּלָּה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְחַייָב עַל הַשֵּׁינִי וְעַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. מָאן דָּמַר. אֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. חָֽטְאוּ עַל שְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וְעַל בִּיטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְעַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקֳדָשָׁיו. מָאן דָּמַר. אֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. הֲרֵי חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁוִין. מָאן דָּמַר. מִשֵּׁם שֶׁהַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן הַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. HALAKHAH: “If they sinned before being appointed,” etc. The colleagues say that the reason of Rebbi Simeon is because greatness atones²⁰As will become clear later (Horayot 3:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.3">Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma.22b">Yoma 22b).
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there.. Rebbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²¹This is the only opinion mentioned in the Horayot.3a">Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing.. What is the difference²²Are there practical differences depending on which doctrine one chooses? Since only R. Simeon’s opinion is discussed, it seems that the Yerushalmi accepts his as practice, as far as these rules have practical applications. between them? Referring to the beginning of the Chapter: “An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat;” if there is any doubt whether they sinned. He who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain [sin] so it atones for the doubt. He who said. because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal²³There is no practical difference between rulings based on the colleagues’ or R. Yose’s opinions.. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for him who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third²⁴The first case occurred before he was appointed, the second while he was in office, the third after he was removed from office. According to the colleagues, the induction into exalted office cancels the previous sins; once he entered office no further benefits accrue; cf. Horayot 3:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.3">Note 29.. For him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²⁵No detail is given since the answer is complicated; the problem is taken up again in Horayot 3:2:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.11">Note 64. There is no sacrifice possible if the status of the sinner has changed between the date of the sin and the realization that it happened. The only problem is that of a sin committed in stage 1 which becomes known in stage 3; whether or not a sacrifice is possible depends on the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in Horayot 1:2:2-8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.2.2-8">1:2, cf. there Horayot 3:2:13" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.13">Note 74; cf. also the following Horayot 3:2:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.11">Note 61.. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal²⁶A sacrifice of variable value is required in all three cases; for R. Simeon under the restrictions of Horayot 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.7.1">Chapter 2, Note 84.. For him who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones²⁷The complications discussed in Chapter 2 regarding the variable sacrifice become irrelevant by the elevation of a person to exalted status..

אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. לְעוֹלָם אֵין הַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַד שֶׁתִּיווָדַע לוֹ גְדוּלָּתוֹ. אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִשֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. אֲפִילוּ בֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד פָּטוּר. סָפֵק חֲצִי זַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נְתְמַנֶּה וְסָפֵק חֲצִי זַיִת מִשֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. מָצִינוּ דָבָר עִיקָּרוֹ פָטוּר סְפֵיקוֹ חַייָב. וְלֹא אַשְׁכַּחְנָן כֵּן. אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתִים וְנִתְווַדַּע לָךְ בְּווַדַּייוֹ שֶׁלְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן. שֵׁינִי עָמַד לוֹ בִסְפֵיקוֹ. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּרוֹמִייָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ. חֵלֶב אָכַל כִּיפֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה עָלָיו לְהָבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקָהּ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. הֲרֵי מָצִינוּ דָבָר עִיקָּרוֹ פָטוּר וּסְפֵיקוֹ חַייָב. וָכָא עִיקָּרוֹ פָטוּר וּסְפֵיקוֹ חַייָב. Rebbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone (until his greatness becomes known to him) [unless his error became known to him.]²⁹The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets is from B. It seems that the latter is the correct one. Since it was established in the preceding paragraph that in the opinion of the colleagues it is the act of elevation which wipes off earlier guilt, only those transgressions which are known to the person being elevated are being atoned for. The argument is also acceptable to R. Yose since once the transgression became known to the person, it determines the sacrifice which he is obligated to bring. If then his status changes, he might be prevented from ever bringing this sacrifice. If he ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, even in one oblivion he is not liable³⁰While the consumption of any forbidden food is sinful, the transgression is prosecutable, or if committed inadvertently requires a sacrifice, only if the amount consumed was at least the volume of an olive (except it one ate a complete being, such as an ant.) All transgressions committed during one period of oblivion are added together, on condition that their accumulation result in one and the same sacrifice. But if his appointment changes the nature of the sacrifice, the partial transgressions cannot be added.. A doubt of half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and a doubt of half the volume of an olive after he was appointed: he brings a suspended reparation offering³¹Since the appointment does not change the nature of the required suspended reparation sacrifice (except that the Anointed Priest is not liable for possible infractions relating to the purity of the Temple and its sancta.). Do we find anything where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable? We do not find this! If he ate the volume of two olives, the true nature of one of them became known to him, the other remained for him in doubt³²This now refers to anybody and is not subject to varying purification sacrifices. If he ate two different foods, for one it became known to him that it was forbidden, the other is only suspected of not being kosher. Then for the forbidden food he is liable to bring a purification sacrifice, for the suspected one a suspended reparation sacrifice. Bringing a suspended reparation sacrifice implies an obligation to bring a purification sacrifice if it should become clear that a sin had actually been committed.. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. [If he ate permitted fat, it atoned.]³³The text in brackets is from B; it makes for a smoother reading but one could argue that it is redundant.
R. Jacob’s argument is that a second purification sacrifice (and possibly the suspended reparation sacrifice) should be unnecessary (and therefore impossible) since if the two kinds of food were both known to be not kosher and they were eaten in one period of oblivion, one purification sacrifice would be prescribed. If the second food turned out to be kosher, no sacrifice would be needed. Rebbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression³⁴The previous argument is rejected. The obligation of sacrifices is fixed at the moment the person realizes the sinfulness of his actions. Since at that moment, the status of the second food remained in doubt, it required a suspended reparation sacrifice. But a suspended reparation sacrifice carries with it the implicit obligation of a purification sacrifice in case the situation could be cleared up.. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable³⁵In case of a certain violation, one sacrifice would have been due. Because of the doubt, two or three are due now. The previous statement is disproved..

אָכַל כְּזַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִשֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. סָפֵק כְּזַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וְסָפֵק כְּזַיִת מִשֶׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. One ate the volume of an olive before he was appointed and the volume of an olive after he was appointed. If it was in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]³⁶The moment of realization of the transgression determines the kind of sacrifice required. Since the Anointed and the king are forbidden to offer the sacrifice of a commoner and vice-versa, only one sacrifice is possible.. If the volume of an olive was in doubt before he was appointed, and the volume of an olive was in doubt after he was appointed, in one oblivion he is liable only for one, in two forgettings he is liable for two [sacrifices.³⁷Since a suspended reparation sacrifice is authorized for everybody, it can be offered both by a commoner and by an Anointed Priest or a king. But it was established earlier that elevation starts new obligations of sacrifices. Therefore, obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices before and after elevation cannot be combined.]

אָכַל שְׁלֹשָׁה זֵיתִים וְסָבוּר שֶׁהֵן שְׁנַיִם. הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת כִּדְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. One ate the volume of three olives but was of the opinion that he ate only two. {He selected a sacrifice following Rebbi Joḥanan.³⁸Text of L.} [If he selected one sacrifice, this atones.³⁹Text of B. The two texts have the same meaning; B’s is more easily understood. The Shabbat.71b">Babli, Šabbat 71b, switches the attributions between RR. Johanan and Simeon ben Laqish.
For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the dedication of the sacrifice to atone for two infractions requires a new sacrifice for the third. For R. Joḥanan, the one sacrifice automatically is valid for the third also.] For Rebbi Joḥanan said, if part of the sin was atoned for, all of the sin was atoned for. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if part of the sin was atoned for, not all of the sin was atoned for.

אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנִתְווַדָּע לוֹ בְסָפֵק כָּל־אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְווַדָּע לוֹ בֵית דִּין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. מוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּכֹהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. וּמָה טַעֲם. כַּֽחַטָּאת֙ כָּֽאָשָׁ֔ם. אֵת שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him (in court) [as a certainty.⁴⁰The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴¹The problem discussed here has no direct connection with change of status; it applies as well to a commoner who progressively becomes aware of multiple transgressions of the same kind; Ševuot2:1 (33d l. 10) Keritot.18b">Babli Keritut 18b, Shevuot.19b">Ševuot19b. The Babli finds here a tannaitic controversy. It was stated that the awareness of a transgression determines the obligation of a purification sacrifice, but the obligation of a suspended reparation sacrifice may cover separate incidents. The question then arises what are the obligations if the doubts about a single suspended reparation sacrifice are resolved on different occasions? (In the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion is attributed to Rebbi, that of R. Johanan to Rebbi’s teachers R. Yose ben R. Jehudah and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.)
In the example, the doubt is whether he ate permitted or prohibited fat.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴²The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot2:1.
Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status.. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering⁴³Leviticus.7.7">Lev. 7:7. The verse appears in a different context, i. e., that the technicalities of purification and reparation sacrifices are identical [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 9(1)]. In Maimonides’s opinion, the quote here is an allusion, not a proof.. The knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. וָכָא אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעַתּוּ לְחַטָּאוֹ. תַּמָּן אֲשָׁמוֹ קוֹבְעוֹ. וָכָא מָה אִית לָךְ. The argument of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted. There he says, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. But here he says, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. There, his reparation offering determines it. Here what do you have⁴⁴R. Simeon ben Laqish is not inconsistent. Here, he holds that the moment which determines one’s obligation for a reparation offering also determines the conditions for a future purification offering. But in Ševuot 2:1, the doubt arises about impurity of the Sanctuary which is not subject to a suspended reparation offering. There is no sacrifice which could define future obligations.?

מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר אָכֵן. לֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא בַּיְּדִיעָה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שׁוּם קָרְבַּן. The argument of Rebbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There, he said, if part of the sin was atoned, all of the sin was atoned. And here he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan said this only for the last realization which does not require any sacrifice⁴⁵This paragraph also appears in Ševuot2:1; its original place is here. In the case of three olives he holds that the supplementary in- formation about the third olive is irrelevant since the purification sacrifice for the first two also covers the third. In the case of the volume of five olives, the supplementary information that he ate forbidden fat triggers the obligation of a purification sacrifice which did not exist before; it is relevant..

הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה קַייֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָהּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. תְּלוּיָה בְכַפָּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאִית לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ מֵתָה מִיָּד. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.). What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.
While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁴⁸He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Temurah 2:2" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.2.2">Mishnah Temurah 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנוֹדַע לוֹ בִסְפֵיקוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה וּבְבֵית דִּין מֵעָבַר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּטוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חַייָב. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לִפְטוֹר וְלֹא לְחִיּוּב. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנִתְווַדַּע לוֹ בִסְפֵיקוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וְוַדָּייוֹ מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּו אָמַר. יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעָתוֹ לְחַטָּאוֹ. דּוּ אָמַר. חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּו אָמַר. אֵין יְדִיעַת סְפֵיקוֹ קוֹבְעָתוֹ לְחַטָּאוֹ. דּוּ אָמַר. פָּטוּר. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה קַייֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָהּ. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. תְּלוּיָה בְכַפָּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאִית לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ מֵתָה מִיָּד. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty]⁴⁰The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B. after he was removed⁴⁹One now applies the preceding discussion to the Mishnah, following R. Simeon who insists that the status of the person at the moment at which he receives the information determines his liability.. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable⁵⁰In this interpretation, since according to R. Simeon ben Laqish the obligation of a suspended sacrifice implies that of the corresponding purification sacrifice, the prior obligation which was eliminated by the appointment is not re-instituted by removal from office. For R. Joḥanan the status of the suspended sacrifice is irrelevant for the purification offering. Since after removal the person is again under the rules of a commoner, his obligation is not changed.. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability⁵¹Since the original statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to a case where he is more restrictive than R. Joḥanan, it is inadmissible to quote him in support of a more lenient position. In the case considered there is unanimity that for a transgression committed as a commoner, which could not have been atoned for while one was elevated, the original obligation of a purification sacrifice of a female sheep or goat is re-instituted.? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say⁵²The construction in L is rather awkward; that of B is more smooth, but this probably indicate that the text of B is babylonized. that one is liable⁵³Since the obligation preceded the elevation it cannot be removed following R. Simeon.. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable⁵⁴Since the obligation of a purification sacrifice became known when the person was prohibited from offering a commoner’s sacrifice, following R. Simeon the person is prevented from offering any sacrifice.. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.). What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.
While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately⁴⁸He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Temurah 2:2" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.2.2">Mishnah Temurah 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה חֲצִי זַיִת שֶׁעָבַר. הוֹאִיל וּבָא חִיּוּב קָרְבָּן בֵּנְתַיִים מִצְטָֽרְפִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁלֹשָׁה. אָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ. שֵׁינִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי הֶעֱלֵימוֹ שֶׁלְּרִאשׁוֹן. נִתְוַדַּע לוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ עַל הַשֵּׁינִי. שְׁלִישִׁי בְהֶעֱלֵימוֹ שֶׁלְּשֵׁינִי. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְווַדַּע לוֹ עַל כּוּלְּהֶם. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַייָב עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁינִי וּפָטוּר עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. שֵׁינִי לְדַעְתּוֹ הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. רָצָה מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. חֲבֵרַייָא מְדַמְייָא לָהּ לְאַרְבָּעָה חֲצָיֵי זֵיתִים. אִם הָיָה פִיקֵּחַ מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד. וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. מֵבִיא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁינִי אֶחָד. עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְעַל הָֽרְבִיעִי אֶחָד. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֶּה לָהּ לְזֵיתִים שְׁלֵימִים. אִם הָיָה פִיקֵּחַ מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת. וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. מֵבִיא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁינִי אֶחָד וְעַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְעַל הָֽרְבִיעִי אֶחָד. אִם הֵבִיא עַל הָאֶמְצָעִיִים פָּטוּר עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הָֽרְבִיעִי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מְדַמֵּי לָהּ לְזֵיתִים שְׁלֵימִים. אִם הָיָה פִיקֵּחַ מֵבִיא שְׁנֵי קָרְבָּנוֹת וְאִם לָאו מֵבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה קָרְבָּנוֹת. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. מֵבִיא עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁינִי אֶחָד וְעַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְעַל הָֽרְבִיעִי אֶחָד. אִם הֵבִיא עַל הָאֶמְצָעִיִים חַייָב עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְעַל הָֽרְבִיעִי בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. ⁵⁵A similar problem is treated in the Horayot.11a">Babli, 11a. If one ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. Since [no]⁵⁶Text of B, necessary in the text. Since no full olive-sized piece of forbidden food was eaten while the person was in his privileged appointed status, the previous argument that the new obligation of sacrifices invalidates the old one does not apply. The question is raised whether the two unrelated episodes of a commoner’s obligation can be added. In the Babli, the question remains undecided in principle. obligation of a sacrifice came in between, do they combine? Let us hear from the following⁵⁷Cf. Shabbat.71b">Babli Šabbat 71b.: Before him were three [olive sized pieces]⁵⁸Text of B.. He ate the first but did not realize it; the second (and the third)⁵⁹Text of L. It is preferable to delete it since if the second and third olives are eaten under similar circumstances, the remaining text of the statement becomes redundant. while he was oblivious of the first. He was informed of the first but was not informed of the second. [He ate] the third while oblivious of the second. Afterwards he was informed about all of them. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable for the first and the second but not liable for the third⁶⁰When he became obligated for a purification sacrifice for the first piece, he did not know of his obligation for the second. Following R. Simeon, the obligation for the first piece and the future one for the second are incompatible. But if the information about the second and the third reaches him after the third had been eaten, one sacrifice covers both of them.. Rebbi Yose said, the second depends on his intention. If he wishes, he atones for it with the first; if he wishes, he atones for it with the third⁶¹He disputes R. Johanan’s interpretation of R. Simeon’s position. Since the first and second pieces were eaten in ignorance, even if the information reached the perpetrator piecemeal, one sacrifice still may cover both. The argument for using one and the same sacrifice for the second and third pieces is the same as that given by R. Joḥanan.. The colleagues compare it to four half-olives⁶²He ate pieces 1,2,3,4 in a situation when while eating piece i he was informed about the forbidden character of piece i–2 but not yet about piece i–1. (If one of these numbers be 0 or negative, the relative information is void.) Then one sacrifice covers pieces 1 and 2 which were eaten in ignorance. But since at the time he was eating piece 3 he already was informed about piece 1, the sacrifice for 1 and 2 cannot be applied to 3. Since he was informed about 2 but not 3 when he ate 4, the last two pieces can be atoned for by one sacrifice.. If he was intelligent, he brings one sacrifice; otherwise, he brings two sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together; one for the third and fourth together. (Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together.)⁶³This text, missing in B, is an intrusion of the later text into the current discussion; it should be disregarded. If he brought for the middle ones, he is not liable for the first and the fourth⁶⁴The intelligent person will dedicate his sacrifice for pieces 2 and 3. Then 1 is a single half-olive which does not qualify for a sacrifice. The same holds true for 4. Since the information about 1 was available when 4 was consumed, 1 and 4 do not combine.. Rebbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together. If he brought for the middle ones, he is liable for the first separately and for the fourth separately⁶⁵The situation contemplated by R. Yose is parallel to that considered by the colleagues but this time each of the pieces has the full volume of an olive. Then each piece itself qualifies for a sacrifice. The second best solution of the colleagues now becomes the best for R. Yose; their best now is the second best..

רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. אַף בַּאֲכִילַת פְּרָסִים כֵּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כָּל־זֶה שְׁאִילְתָּה דְרִבִּי יִצְחָק לֵית הִיא כְלוּם. וכתיב בַּאֲכִילַת פְּרָסִים הַדָּבָר תָּלוּי. אִילּוּ אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי פְרַס זֶה וַחֲצִי זַיִת בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי פְרַס זֶה שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. אָכַל כַּמָּה זֵיתִים וְכַמָּה פְרָסִים בְּהֶיעֱלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרֵי. עַד דֵּין מְדַמֵּי לַהּ לַחֲלָבִים וּדְמִינָהּ לַשַּׁבָּת. אִילּוּ אָרַג חוט אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי בֶגֶד זֶה וְחוט אֶחָד בְּתוֹךְ כְּדֵי בֶגֶד זֶה שֶׁמָּא כְלוּם הוּא. אָרַג כַּמָּה חוּטִין בְּכַמָּה בְגָדִים בְּהֶיעֱלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. הֲרֵי בָּא חִיּוּב בְּקָרְבָּן בֵּנְתַיִים וְתֵימַר מִצְטָֽרְפִין. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. תַּמָּן חִייוּב בְקָרְבָּן. בְּרַם הָכָא קָרְבָּן. Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves⁶⁶פְּרַס is the technical term for half a loaf of bread. (The punctuation פְּרָסִים is the ms.’s. The term is derived either from Hebrew פרס “to break bread” or Latin pars “part, share, portion” of food). The time needed to eat half a loaf serves as definition of the time needed for a minimal meal. For example, any person entering an infected house becomes impure (Leviticus.14.46">Lev. 14:46) but his garments also become a source of original impurity only if he stays there for a meal, i. e., the time needed to eat half a loaf (Leviticus.14.47">v. 47). Negaim 7:9-10" href="/Tosefta_Negaim.7.9-10">Tosephta Negaˋim 7:10 (Eruvin 8:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Eruvin.8.2.1">Mishnah Eruvin 8:2) defines the loaf in question as baked from wheat flour in the volume of a third of a qab. Terumot 5:1:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.5.1.11">Halakhah Terumot 5:3 (Note 44) estimates a modius, 4 qab, as the volume of 96 eggs. This makes a פְּרַס a piece of bread baked from the volume of 4 eggs of wheat flour. The sources give no indication of a translation of this definition into terms of time.
Snacks eaten at times separated by more that the time needed to eat a peras must be counted as separate meals. Therefore, eating forbidden food triggers the obligation of a purification sacrifice only if the volume of an entire olive was eaten in the time needed to eat a peras(Keritot 3:3" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.3.3">Mishnah Keritut 3:3).? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does]⁶⁷The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב. the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything⁶⁸As explained in Horayot 3:2:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.11">Note 56, no atonable sin was committed.? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]⁶⁹As explained before, if an atonable sin was committed, any number of sins corresponding to the same definition committed during one spell of oblivion are atoned for by one sacrifice.. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath⁷⁰This remark does not fit in here; it shows that the text was taken from Šabbat 1:1 (2b line 32 ff.) where R. Yose’s (the Amora’s) remark here is put in the mouth of R. Yudan (the Amora) to explain the opinion of R. Yose (the Tanna) about violations of Sabbath prohibitions. It is forbidden to transport goods from one place to another on the Sabbath. “Transporting” means taking up the goods, moving them from one domain to another, and unloading. If any of the three actions be missing, no prosecutable sin was committed. In addition, for each kind of goods the Mishnah specifies minimal amounts. If less than the amount specified was transported while the person was oblivious of the Sabbath, no purification offering is required. On the other hand, if any number of transports were executed within one period of oblivion, only one sacrifice is needed. R. Yose the Tanna then specifies that repeated transports of less than a minimal amount add up to an atonable sin only if the different pieces were transported between the same domains [Šabbat 1:1 (2b line 22), Shabbat.80a">Babli Šabbat 80a, Bava batra 55b, Keritot.17a">Keritut 17a.] This is compared to the rules specifying purification sacrifices for eating pieces of forbidden fat. The rabbis of Caesarea object that there is no proof that the rules of the Sabbath be identical to the rules for other biblical prohibitions, but the rules detailed for transporting are paralleled by rules for other kinds of activities on the Sabbath. Shabbat 13:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Shabbat.13.1.1">Mishnah Šabbat 13:1 states that weaving is forbidden and the threshold for an action requiring a purification sacrifice is weaving two threads. For the majority, weaving two threads in one oblivion triggers the obligation of a sacrifice, for R. Yose only if the two rows were added to the same piece of cloth.? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together⁷¹Now one returns to the problem posed in the preceding paragraph, of the person who ate three half-olive sized pieces of forbidden fat while he was in different states for possible purification sacrifices. Is it possible to decide between R. Joḥanan on one side and R. Yose (the Amora) and the colleagues on the other? For the latter, it should make sense to combine the two pieces eaten while the person was a commoner. This is rejected, since the two states of commoner are separated by an interval in which the purification offering had to be different, everybody will agree that the three half sized pieces do not add up to one full sized piece.? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change]⁷²Text of B, forgotten by the scribe of L. of sacrifice.

אָכַל כְּזַיִת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה וּכְזַיִת מִשֶּׁעָבַר. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דַּחֲבֵרַייָא דִּינוּן אָֽמְרִין. מִשֵּׁם שֶׂהַגְּדוּלָּה מְכַפֶּרֶת. כִּיפְּרָה גְּדוּלָּה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְחַייָב עַל הַשֵּׁינִי וְעַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דּוּ אָמַר. אֵין חֵטְאוֹ וִידִיעָתוֹ שָׁויִן. חַייָב עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשֵּׁינִי וּפָטוּר עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָכַל כְּזַיִת. סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה סָפֵק מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּייֵר סָפֵק מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּייֵר. סָפֵק עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת סָפֵק מִשֶּׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. If one ate the volume of an olive before he was appointed, the volume of an olive after he was appointed, and the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. In the opinion of the colleagues who say, because high office atones²⁰As will become clear later (Horayot 3:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.3">Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma.22b">Yoma 22b).
The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there., the office atoned for the first and he is liable for the second and the third⁷³As explained at the start of the chapter, it is not the high office but the appointment to high office which atones; the occupant of a high office is responsible for his actions like everybody else.. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²¹This is the only opinion mentioned in the Horayot.3a">Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing., he is liable for the first and the second, but not liable for the third⁷⁴It is difficult to make sense of this statement. If the information became known in stage three, which seems to be the hypothesis, there can be no sacrifice for unresolved sins committed in stage 2. The only problem would be a sin committed in stage 1, for which a sacrifice in stage 3 was ruled out by R. Abun in the preceding paragraph. The author of this paragraph seems to disagree with R. Abun.. He ate the size of an olive. If it is in doubt whether he ate before he was appointed or after he was appointed⁷⁵In the first case, a purification sacrifice is needed but not in the second, both for the colleagues and R. Yose., or whether it was before he converted or after he converted⁷⁶The Gentile is not required to observe biblical commandments except the Seven Noahide commandments. In no case is a purification sacrifice possible for an unconverted Gentile., or whether it was before he had grown two pubic hairs or after he had grown two pubic hairs⁶⁷The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב., he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice⁷⁸This means that a reparation sacrifice is required not only in case the criminality of the act is in question but even if the possibility of a purification sacrifice is in doubt..

אָכַל סְפֵק כְּזַיִת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֲכָלוֹ אִם קוֹדֶם יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֲכָלוֹ. סְפֵק כַּפָּרָה כִיפֵּר. אִם בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֲכָלוֹ אִם לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֲכָלוֹ. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. סְפֵק כַּפָּרָה כִיפֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְייָה. לְעוֹלָם אֵין סְפֵק כַפָּרָה מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל מִינֵי דָמִים. מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לַחֲבֵרַייָה. שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת. מַה נַפְשָׁךְ. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים הוּא כִיפֵּר. חוֹל הוּא מוּתָּר. וְהָתַנֵּי וְאָכַל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בַּאֲכִילַת הֵיתֵר. If he ate a full olive sized piece⁸⁰Kosher food, which only is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt⁸¹Cf. Horayot 1:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.1.1.4">Chapter 1, Note 19.. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt⁸²If the food was eaten in the twilight at the end of the Day of Atonement and the next day already had started, no sin was committed (Leviticus.23.32">Lev. 23:32). If it still was the day of Atonement, doctrine is that in the absence of a scapegoat the end of the day provides the Atonement [Yoma 8:8 45c l. 15; Ševuot 1:9 33c l. 3, lacunary Sanhedrin 10:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.10.1.9">Sanhedrin 10:1 Note 34; Tosefta Kippurim 4:17].. Rebbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood⁸³R. Mattaniah holds that the Day of Atonement only eliminates a suspended reparation sacrifice which certainly was due. But in the case where the doubt arises whether it was the Day of Atonement or not, there is no prior obligation and, therefore, it cannot be eliminated.. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.⁸⁴Keritot 4:2" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.4.2">Mishnah Keritut 4:2. The Mishnah deals with a case which is impossible in our computed calendar, where the Day of Atonement was either Friday or Sunday and somebody was doing some forbidden work during the twilight between the days. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, holds that in this case no suspended sacrifice is due since one may assume that part of the work was done on the day of Atonement; this part of an unintended sin then is eliminated, leaving an incomplete work for the Sabbath which needs no sacrifice (Horayot 3:2:11" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.11">Note 60). This shows that the colleagues are correct in extending the power of the Day of Atonement.” As you take it, if it was the Day of Atonement, it atoned. If it was weekday, it is permitted. But did we not state “he ate”⁸⁵The questioner thinks that the food in question was forbidden fat. In that case, the Day of Atonement cannot eliminate the obligation of a suspended sacrifice for the following night. The answer is that in contrast to the cases considered earlier, one supposes that kosher food was eaten.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, eating permitted [food].

אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנִתְווַדַּע לוֹ בִסְפֵיקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנֶּה וּבְבֵית דִּין מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּטוּר. כֵּן אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְחִיּוּב לֹא לִפְטוֹר. אֶלָּא כֵינִי. אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנִתְווַדַּע לוֹ בִסְפֵיקָן מִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנֶּה וּבְבֵית דִּין מִשֶׁעָבַר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דּו אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. דּוּ אָמַר. פָּטוּר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּו אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר מִקְצָת הַחֵט נִתְכַּפֵּר כּוּלּוֹ. דּוּ אָמַר. חַייָב. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה קַייֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָהּ. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. תְּלוּיָה בְכַפָּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֵית לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ מֵתָה מִיָּד. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court)⁸⁶Cf. Horayot 3:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.3">Note 30. It seems that one should read “its certainty”. after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable⁸⁷Since R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that his status at the moment of the first notification determines his obligation for sacrifices (Horayot 3:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.6">Note 43), he became obligated for a purification offering. If now he is not a commoner, he is obligated for an exalted person’s purification offering. For R. Johanan who disagrees (Horayot 3:2:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.7">Note 44), the knowledge of the doubt does not determine the obligation when he is informed of the certainty. Following R. Simeon, action and information referred to different status; no sacrifice is possible.. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability⁸⁸This is the reverse of the question asked in Horayot 3:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.6">Note 41; in any case the argument is inconclusive since the exact position of R. Simeon ben Laqish is unknown.? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive⁸⁹Before he was appointed.. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court)⁸⁶Cf. Horayot 3:2:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.3">Note 30. It seems that one should read “its certainty”. after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say⁴²The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot2:1.
Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status. that he is not liable⁹⁰One does not argue directly from R. Simeon ben Laqiah’s statement but from his argument, based on the principle stated, in the case of three pieces when he realized only that he had eaten two (Horayot 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.1">Note 19). R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the moment of first information determines his status for sacrifices. Since he was informed of a transgression as a commoner when he was exalted and therefore prevented of bringing a sacrifice, had he then been informed of the certainty, the additional information reaching him after he reverted to commoner status cannot change the situation. R. Johanan, who in the situation of Note 29 extends the validity of the sacrifice, will allow the information reaching him as a commoner to determine the sacrifice due for an act committed as a commoner.. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable⁹⁴While he ate the five pieces, he was oblivious either of the fact that these were forbidden fat or of the law that certain kinds of fat are forbidden. Then he was informed of the forbidden character of these pieces one by one and immediately after each information dedicated an animal but did not sacrifice yet.. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.). What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.
While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁴⁸He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Temurah 2:2" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.2.2">Mishnah Temurah 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה קַייֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָהּ. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. תְּלוּיָה בְכַפָּרָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כָּל־שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאֵית לֹא הִיא וְלֹא דָמֶיהָ מֵתָה מִיָּד. Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁹¹It seems that this paragraph is superfluous text. The scribe copied the preceding text with the wrong start and then copied again the (almost) correct text in the next paragraph..

מוֹדֶה רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁאִם הָֽיְתָה רִאשׁוֹנָה קַייֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא נִדְחֵית. מַה יֵעָשֶׂה בָהּ. רִבִּי יָסָא אָמַר. תְּלוּיָה בְכַפָּרָה. לְפוּם כֵּן רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן הֲוִי עָלֶיהָ. אָכַל חֲמִשָּׁה זֵיתִים וְנִתְוַדַּע לוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. בַּשֵּׁינִי וּמֵבִיא קָרְבָּן. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּמַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן. בָּֽרְבִיעִי וּמַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן. בַּחֲמִישִּׁי וּמַקְרִיב קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בָּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא לִפְנֵי אֲכִילַת כּוּלְּהֶם וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה שֶׁהוּא לִאַחַר אֲכִילַת כּוּלְּהֶם וְהַשְּׁאָר יִדְּחוּ. רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא. רַב חִסְדָּא כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מְתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא. וְהָא מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָה לָךְ וּפְלִיגָא עָלַי. אִם הָֽיְתָה יְדִיעָה בֵּנְתַיִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת כָּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כָּל־אַחַת וְאַחַת. אִילּוּ תַנָּא אָשָׁם וְקָם לֵיהּ. יְאוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָה. אֲפִילוּ כֵן לִצְדָדִין דְּתֵימַר כֵּן. Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁹²R. Yose ben R. Abun will show that the often repeated statement that “everybody agrees” is false; R. Johanan disagrees; the explanation given in Horayot 3:2:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.4">Note 36 has to be amended.? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁹³These two sentences are copied from the previous statement; they are copied to point out that R. Zeˋira’s statement is disregarded since it would lead to a complication in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement.. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive⁹⁴While he ate the five pieces, he was oblivious either of the fact that these were forbidden fat or of the law that certain kinds of fat are forbidden. Then he was informed of the forbidden character of these pieces one by one and immediately after each information dedicated an animal but did not sacrifice yet.; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings⁹⁵The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.
For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Parah 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Parah.1.1">Mishnah Parah 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside⁹⁶Since for him dedications cannot be extended, only the last animal can legitimately be sacrificed. The others have to be sent to graze.. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me⁹⁷Keritot 4:2" href="/Mishnah_Keritot.4.2">Mishnah Keritut 4:2.: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one⁹⁸Since temporary oblivion is a prerequisite for the possibility of a purification sacrifice, sins committed when there was an interval of awareness between them cannot be atoned for by one and the same sacrifice. This rule is extended to suspended sacrifices. Since in the case in question the selection of new sacrifices was in response to information, one should read the Mishnah as forbidding the extension of the meaning of dedications..” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped⁹⁹The formulation of the Mishnah and the explanation given in the preceding Note are all wrong. The verses introducing purification sacrifices emphasize that these atone only for unintentional sins. The requirement of oblivion is only mentioned for the suspended reparation sacrifice (Leviticus.5.17">Lev. 5:17). The Mishnah should have mentioned suspended sacrifices first. Since purification sacrifices were mentioned first, the Mishnah cannot be read as referring to the effect of information after the fact, only to information reaching the person between two intrinsically forbidden acts.! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so¹⁰⁰Rav Hisda’s objection is well taken. The formulation of the Mishnah is elliptic. One should read it as follows: “Just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of certainty in between, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of doubt in between.”.

אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זְכַּאי. אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ הוּא מֵבִיא לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן עַל זְדוֹנוֹ. נָשִׂיא שֶׁלּוֹ מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן הַהֶדְיוֹט. [It is written]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L.: If the Prince sin.¹⁰²Leviticus.4.22">Lev. 4:22. The sermon is mentioned in the Horayot.10">Babli 10, Tosephta Bava qamma 7:5, Sifra Hova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah 5(1). It is standard homiletics to derive the conjunction אֲשֶׁר from the root אשר “to be fortunate.” Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, fortunate [is the generation]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. whose Prince brings a purification sacrifice. He brings it for his inadvertent sin, not so much more for his intentional one¹⁰³There is no formal atonement for intentional sin. If the Prince is aware of his unintentional missteps, he will be careful to avoid intentional ones.? If its Prince brings, not so much more the commoner?

נָשִׂיא. יָכוֹל נְשִׂיא שְׁבָטִים כְּנַחְשׁוֹן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְעָשָׂ֡ה אַחַ֣ת מִכָּל־מִצְוֹת֩ יְי אֱלֹהָ֜יו. וְּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר לְמַ֣עַן יִלְמַ֗ד לְיִרְאָה֙ אֶת־יְי אֱלֹהָ֔יו. אֱלֹהָיו לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה. מָה אֱלֹהָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא אֱלֹהָיו. אף אֱלֹהָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא אֱלֹהָיו. “The Prince.” I could think a tribal chieftain like Naḥshon; the verse says, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God⁸Leviticus.4.22">Lev. 4:22.; and further it says, that he may learn to fear the Eternal, his God¹⁰⁴Deuteronomy.17.19">Deut. 17:19. This is justification for the short statement in the Mishnah. Horayot.11">Babli 11a/b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah5(1).. “His God, [his God]” for an equal cut. Since “his God” mentioned there refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. his God, so also “his God” mentioned here refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. his God⁹⁵The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.
For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Parah 1:1" href="/Mishnah_Parah.1.1">Mishnah Parah 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings..

אֲשֶׁ֣ר ׀ יֵ֣שׁ צַדִּיקִ֗ים וגו׳. אַשְׁרֵיהֶם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֶׂה הָֽרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. ווַי לָרְֽשָׁעִים שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֶׂה הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. [It is written:]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. There are just people¹⁰⁶Ecclesiastes.8.14">Eccl. 8:14. Since the parallel in the Horayot.10b">Babli, 10b, also has only a short quote, it seems that the extensive quote of the verse in B is secondary. Eccl. rabbati 8(15), wording of B. [to whom happens what should happen to evildoers and there are evildoers to whom happens what should happen to just people.]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. It is fortunate for just people if to them happens in this world what should happen to evildoers; woe to evildoers if to them happens in this world what should happen to just people¹⁰⁷This is a continuation of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai’s homily about אשר, אשרי. The Just who are poor and unhappy in this world have already been punished for their sins and will go to the World to Come for unlimited eternal bliss. (The Babli somewhat disagrees.) The evildoers who have received the reward of their good deeds in this world will go to the World to Come for unmitigated pain..

מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. לֹא זֶה גָדוֹל מִזֶּה וְלֹא זֶה גָדוֹל מִזֶּה. וּמַה טַעַם. וּמֶ֣לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵ֡ל וּמֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָ֡ה וגו׳ בְּגוֹרֶן. כִּבְגוּרֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וּבִלְחוּד עַד דְּיֵהוּא בֶּן נִמְשִׁי. וּמַה טַעַם. בְּנֵ֣י רְבִיעִ֔ים יֵֽשְׁב֥וּ לְךָ֖ עַל־כִּסֵּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל. מִיכָּן וָאֵילָךְ בְּלִיסְטַייָא הָיוּ נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָהּ. A king of Israel and a king of Jehudah are both equal, neither of them is greater than the other. What is the reason? The king of Israel and [Josaphat]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. the king of Jehudah [were sitting]¹⁰¹From B, missing in L. in the threshing floor¹⁰⁸1K. 22:10.. As in a threshing floor¹⁰⁹They sat together in a circle (Sanhedrin 4:8:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.4.8.1">Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9) so that none had any advantage over the other. Chullin.5a">Babli Ḥulin 5a (Lev. rabba 11(8); Eccl. rabbati 1(30)).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, but only up to Jehu ben Nimshi. What is the reason? Your descendants in the fourth generation will sit on the throne of Israel¹¹⁰2K. 15:12. Jeroboam became king with prophetic sanction; Baˋsha at least had prophetic acknowledgment; Omri was appointed by popular acclaim, and Jehu by prophetic anointment. All permanent kings of Israel from Jeroboam I to Jeroboam II’s son had religious sanction. After that the kings of Israel with only one exception murdered their precedessors.. After that they were taking it by robbery.

אֵי זֶהוּ הוּא מָשִׁיחַ. הַמָּשׁוּחַ בַּשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה כול׳. אָמַר רַב חוּנָה. כָּל אוֹתָן שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהָיָה דָוִד בּוֹרֵחַ מִפְּנֵי אַבְשָׁלוֹם שְׂעִורָה הַווָת מִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ כְהֶדְיוֹט. “And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil,” etc. Rav Huna said, the entire six months during which David was in flight before his son Absalom, his sins would have been atoned for by a female goat for a commoner¹¹¹The same statement also is found in Roš Haššanah 1:1 (56b l. 49). A king who is not in control of his government does not have the status of king [Cf Sanhedrin 2:4:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.2.4.2-5">Sanhedrin 2:4 (Horayot 3:2:21" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.21">Note 108)]..

תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוּדָה בֵּירִבִּי אִלָּעאי אוֹמֵר. שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה בָהָר מַעֲשֵׂה נִיסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ בּוֹ מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף. שֶׁמִּתְּחִילָּה לֹא הָיָה בוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר לוֹג. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשֶׁ֥מֶן זַיִ֖ת הִֽין׃ אִם לָסוּךְ בּוֹ אֶת הֶעֵצִים לֹא הָיוּ סָפַק. עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁהָאוֹר בּוֹלֵעַ וְהַיּוֹרָה בוֹלַעַת וְהָעֵצִים בּוֹלְעִין. מִמֶּנּוּ נִמְשְׁחוּ הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְכָל־כֵּלָיו. הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכָל־כֵּלָיו. מְנוֹרָה וְכָל־כֵּלֶיהָ. כִּיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ. מִמֶּנּוּ נִמְשְׁחוּ אַהֲרֹן כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּבָנָיו כָּל־שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּילּוּאִים. מִמֶּנּוּ נִמְשְׁחוּ כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים וּמְלָכִים. מֶלֶךְ בַּתְּחִילָּה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ אֵין טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ק֥וּם מְשִׁיחֵהוּ כִּֽי־זֶ֥ה הֽוּא. זֶה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה וְאֵין בָּנָיו טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. אֲבָל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אֲפִילוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה. וְכולּוֹ קַייָם לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שֶׁ֠מֶן מִשְׁחַת־קוֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֥ה זֶ֛ה לִי֭ לְדֹרוֹתֵיכֶם׃ ¹¹²This text is part of a longer text found in Sotah 8:3:5-7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah.8.3.5-7">Soṭah 8:3, Notes 69–92 (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 214), and, what seems to be the original source, Šeqalim 6:1, 49c l. 52 ff., Babli editio princeps 9d l. 21. Only the biblical quotes and major deviations from the Sotah text are noted here. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain¹¹³In Sotah and Šeqalim: “in the desert.” The place is not mentioned in B. was from beginning to end a series of miracles since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said: and olive oil one hin¹¹⁴Exodus.30.24">Ex. 30:24.. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much more since the fire swallows, the kettle swallows, wood absorbs! From it the Tabernacle and all its vessels were anointed, the altar and all its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels, the wash basin and its base. From it Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction; from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing; a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: Do anoint him, for this one is it¹¹⁵1S. 16:12., this one needs anointing, but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is there for the future, as it was said: a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations¹¹⁶Exodus.30.31">Ex. 30:31..

אֵין מוֹשְׁחִין אֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי הַמַּעַייָן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהִרְכַּבְתֶּם֙ אֶת־שְׁלֹמֹ֣ה בְנִ֔י וגו׳ וּמָשַׁ֣ח אוֹתוֹ שָׁ֠ם צָד֨וֹק הַכֹּהֵ֜ן וְנָתָ֧ן הַנָּבִ֛יא לְמֶ֖לֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל. אֵין מוֹשְׁחִין אֶת הַמְּלָכִים אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. מִפְּנֵי מַה נִמְשַׁח שְׁלֹמֹה. מִפְּנֵי מַחֲלוֹקָתוֹ שְׁלָּאֲדוֹנִיָּהוּ. וְיוֹאָשׁ מִפְּנֵי עֲתַלְיָה. וְיֵהוּא מִפְּנֵי יוֹרָם. לֹא כֵן כָּתוּב ק֥וּם מְשָׁחֵה֭וּ כִּֽי־זֶ֥ה הֽוּא. זֶה טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה וְאֵין מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל טְעוּנִין מְשִׁיחָה. וְלֹא יִאשִׁיָּהוּ גְּנָזוֹ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. בְּאַפֵּי־בַּלְסָמוֹן נִמְשְׁחוּ. יוּאָחָז מִפְּנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים אָחִיו שֶׁהָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים. אֵין מוֹשְׁחִין מְלָכִים אֶלָּא מִן הַקֶּרֶן. שָׁאוּל וְיֵהוּא נִמְשְׁחוּ מִן הַפָּךְ הָֽיְתָה מַלְכוּתָן מַלְכוּת עוֹבֶרֶת. דָּוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה נִמְשְׁחוּ מִן הַקֶּרֶן הָֽיְתָה מַלְכוּתָן מַלְכוּת קַייֶמֶת. אֵין מוֹשְׁחִין מְלָכִים כֹּהֲנִים. רִבִּי יוּדָה עַנְתּוֹדְרַייָה. עַל שֵׁם לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר שֵׁ֨בֶט֙ מִֽיהוּדָ֔ה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא. לְמַ֩עַן֩ יַֽאֲרִ֨יךְ יָמִ֧ים עַל־מַמְלַכְתּ֛וֹ ה֥וּא וּבָנָי֖ו בְּקֶ֥רֶב כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ מַה כְתִיב בַּתְרֵיהּ. לֹא־יִֽ֠הְיֶ֠ה לַכֹּֽהֲנִ֙ים הַֽלְוִיִּ֝ם. One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said: Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel¹¹⁷1K. 1:33–34.. One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adoniahu, Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written, do anoint him, for this one is it, this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing? ¹¹⁸In all other sources, this follows the quote about the sons of Josiah. If Josiah had buried the holy oil together with the ark, how could his son have been anointed? But did not Josiah hide it? That means that they anointed with balsamum. Joaḥaz because of his brother Joakin who was two years his elder. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings. Rebbi Jehudah Antordiya said, because of the scepter shall not be removed from Jehudah¹¹⁹Genesis.49.10">Gen. 49:10.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel¹²⁰Deuteronomy.17.20">Deut. 17:20.. What is written after that? The levitic Cohanim should not¹²¹Deuteronomy.18.1">Deut. 18:1..

וְהָֽכְתִיב הַבְּכוֹר֙ יֽוֹחָנָ֔ן. הַבְּכוֹר לַמַּלְכוּת. וְהָֽכְתִיב הַשְּׁלִישִׁי צִדְקִיָּ֔הוּ הָֽרְבִיעִ֖י שַׁלּֽוּם׃ שְׁלִישִׁי לַמַּלְכוּת. רְבִיעִי לְתוֹלֶדֶת. צִדְקִיָּ֔הוּ שֶׁצִּידֵּק עָלָיו אֶת הַדִּין. שַׁלּֽוּם שֶׁבְּיָמָיו שָֽׁלְמָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד. לָא שַׁלּוּם הֲוָה שְׁמֵיהּ וְלָא צִדְקִיָּה הֲוָה שְׁמֵיהּ אֶלָּא מַתַּנְייָה. הָדָא הִיא דִכְתִיב וַיַּמְלֵ֧ךְ מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶ֛ל אֶת־מַתַּנְיָ֥ה דּוֹדוֹ תַּחְתָּ֑יו וגו׳. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan¹²²1Chr. 3:15., the first in kingdom. ¹²³There the introduction is missing, that R. Joḥanan identified Sedekiah and Shallum as one and the same person. In the Horayot.11b">Babli 11b this and the following are a tannaitic statement.The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. ¹²⁴In the Šeqalim text of the Babli editio princeps the statement is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead¹²⁵2K. 24:17. etc.

הַמָּשׁוּחַ בַּשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. בַּבִּנְייָן הָרִאשׁוֹן. לְמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. בַּבִּנְייָן הָאַחֲרוֹן. וַאֲתַאי כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי אִינָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים הָיָה בְבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן חָסֵר מְן הָרִאשׁוֹן. מַאי טַעֲמָא. עֲל֥וּ הָהָ֛ר וַֽהֲבֵאתֶ֥ם עֵ֖ץ וגו׳ אֶכָּבְדָ֖ חָסֵר ה׳. אֵלּוּ ה׳ דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אַחֲרוֹן חָסֵר מֵהָרִאשׁוֹן. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. אֵשׁ וָאָרוֹן וְאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים וְשֶׁמֶן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. ¹²⁶Here starts the discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah, which continues with discussion of Mishnah 4 (= Megillah 1:10:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Megillah.1.10.1">Mishnah Megillah 1:12).“The anointed with the anointing oil,” in the first Temple. “The one clothed in multiple garb,” in the later Temple. It follows what Rebbi Ina¹²⁷In the Yoma.21b">Babli (Yoma 21b) and the Horaiot text in the Babli, as well as the parallels in Makkot 2:6:2-7:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Makkot.2.6.2-7.4">Makkot 2:7 (explained in Notes 125–130), Taˋaniot 2:1 (65a l. 60): R. Samuel bar Ainia. Since the latter name appears as that of a student of R. Aḥa several times in different Tractates but “R. Ina” only here, the reading of B is preferable. said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In five things was the later Temple deficient compared with the first. What is the reason? Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc. I should be honored is missing a ¹²⁸Haggai.1.8">Hag. 1:8. אכבד is the Ketib, אכבדה the Qere. In the Alexandrian system of numeration by letters, ה׳ is 5.ה. These are the five things in which the later Temple was deficient compared with the first. And these are it: The fire¹²⁹The fire on the outer altar in the first Temple was of divine origin (2Chr. 7:1), but not that of the second Temple., the ark, Urim and Tummim¹³⁰The oracle whose nature was unknown in later times., the (holy) oil [of anointing and the holy spirit.]¹³¹Text of B; a necessary addition since the text of L mentions only 4 items. The list in the Babli is slightly different. The holy spirit is that of prophecy.

תַּנֵּי. כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פָּר. אֵין מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָּר. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. מָשִׁיחַ. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן. לְהוֹצִיא לִמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. מָשִׁיחַ. יָכוֹל זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן. לְרַבּוֹת מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. הָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְהוֹצִיא לִמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. וָכָא אַתָּ מַר. לְרַבּוֹת לִמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. אָמַר רִבִּי הִילָא. כָּל־מִדְרַשׁ וּמִדְרַשׁ לְעִנְייָנוֹ. אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַל הֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. אוֹ אִילּוּ נֶּאֱמַר כֹּהֵן וְלֹא מָשִׁיחַ. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. אִם תֹּאמַר. בְּפָר קָֽדְמָה פָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ שֶׁיּוּטַּל עַל הֶעֱלֵם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שִׁגְּגַת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. הֲוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְצוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. Why does the verse say, priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. Here you say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. But there you say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king. If you would say by a bull, preceding the paragraph about the king, assuming that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.¹³³The text and the following paragraphs up to the quote from Eduyot 5:6" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.5.6">Idiut 5:6 is from Megillah 1:10:2-9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Megillah.1.10.2-9">Megillah 1:12. The secondary character of the text here is shown by the thorough corruption of the present paragraph compared to the parallel text in Megillah and partially Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Paršeta 2(6). One might conjecture that the editor of B neither did want to rearrange the text nor print it in disorder. The text of Megillah is readily understandable; it also explains the mutilated text here. The additional text is given in a different typeface.
תַּנִּי. כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פָר. אֵין הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָּר. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. הַמְרוּבָּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָשִׁים. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן. מָשִׁים. יָכוֹל זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כּהֵן. אי כהן יָכוֹל אַף מַרוּבָּה בגָדִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ. אוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מַרְבֶּה אַף מְשוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין עַל גַבָּיו מָשִׁיחַ, מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטתּוֹן דְרַבָּנָן, הָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ וְהָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ, הָכָא אִינוּן אֶמְרִין. לְרַבּוֹת מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. וְהָכָא אִינוּן אָמְרִין. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים, אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא. כָּל־מִדְרַשׁ וּמִדְרַשׁ בְּעִנְיָנוֹ. תַּמָּן כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. לְאֵי־זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. בְּרָם הָכָא אֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. אִילוּ נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שְׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא טָעִיר. הַוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. או אִלוּ נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. אִין תּאמַר, כְּבָר קָדְמָה פָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שִׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. הַנִי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְצוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן.
It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meir, for Rebbi Mei"r said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull¹³⁴The definite article used in Leviticus.4.3">Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meir's reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁵Horayot 2:3" href="/Tosefta_Horayot.2.3">Tosephta 2:3.. What is the rabbis' reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed¹³⁶The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war¹³⁷The one mentioned in Deuteronomy.20.3">Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Sotah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Leviticus.21">Lev. 21: 10-15 (Horayot 2:1" href="/Tosefta_Horayot.2.1">Tosephta 2:1).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here¹³⁸Leviticus.6.15">Lev. 6: 15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁹Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Saw Pereq 5(1)].. But here¹⁴⁰In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb¹⁴¹Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of "the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead" does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat¹⁴²As explained in Horayot 2:3:2-3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.2.3.2-3">Chapter 2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner's sacrifice (or, since a male is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry.) The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner's sacrifice.. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king¹⁴³Since Cohen may simply mean "public servant" (2S. 8: 18).. If you would say already this¹⁴⁴The unintelligible בפר in the text here is a plausible misreading for כבר. precedes the paragraph about the king¹⁴⁵Which is only the third In the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Horayot 3:2:26" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.26">Note 131., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן עָבַר וְהֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ כָשֵׁר. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and offered his tenth of an ephah it is valid¹⁴⁵Which is only the third in the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Horayot 3:2:26" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.26">Note 131..

מַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל. מַה. מְייַחֲדִין לֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּי. מֹשֶׁה. דִּינּוּן מְייַחֲדִין לֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ דּוּ קְטִיל לֵיהּ. אוֹתוֹ. אֶחָד מוֹשְׁחִין וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי הָאֵיבָה. ¹⁴⁶From here on there is a parallel in Yoma 1:1 (38c l. 72 ff.).“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.¹⁴⁷Yoma 1:1:1-27" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yoma.1.1.1-27">Mishnah Yoma 1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses¹⁴⁸In Yoma “because of”, a scribal error. “By Moses” was a preferred expression of R. Ḥaggai’s.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹⁴⁹Leviticus.6.12">Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Saw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹⁵⁰He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up..

עָבַר זֶה וְשִׁימֵּשׁ זֶה. הָרִאשׁוֹן כָּל־קְדוּשַּׁת כְּהוּנָּה עָלָיו. הַשֵּׁינִי אֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. עָבַר וְעָבַד עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. עֲבוֹדָתוֹ מִשֶּׁל מִי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֶן אִלֵּם בְּצִיפֹּרִים שֶׁאִירַע קֶרִי בְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וְנִכְנַס בֶּן אִלֵּם וְשִׁימֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו. יָצָא וְאָמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ. פָּר וְאַיִל הַקְּרֵיבִים הַיּוֹם מִשֶׁלְּמִי הֵן קְרֵיבִין. מִשֶּׁלּוֹ אוֹ מִשֵׁלְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְיָדַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מָהוּ שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ. לֹא דַּייֶךָּ שֶׁשִּׁימַּשְׁתָּ שָׁעָה אַחַת לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. וְיָדַע בֶּן אִלֵּם שֶׁהוּסַּע מִכְּהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה. If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest¹⁵¹As the Yoma.12b">Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim 3:3:15" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bikkurim.3.3.15">Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Ševuot 1:8, 33b l.13). Since the service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if performed by the High Priest, the substitute becomes a temporary High Priest. He cannot act as a High Priest if the actual High Priest’s temporary disability is removed and he is permanently barred from acting as a common priest. As the Babli points out, if the High Priest dies, the substitute automatically becomes his successor.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is (invalid) [valid]¹⁵²The text in parentheses is that of L, the one in brackets that of B as well as the parallels in Megillah and Yoma and the Yoma.13a">Babli (Yoma 13a). The text of L cannot be correct since it is held in general that a doubt about the legitimacy of officiating in the Temple does not invalidate the offering (Terumot 8:1:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.8.1.4">Terumot 8:1, Note 26).. Whose officiating? ¹⁵³The case is told not only in the two parallels in Megillah and Yoma, but also in abbreviated form in the Yoma.12b">Babli, Yoma 12b where, however, the ruling is not the king’s (necessarily of the Herodian dynasty) but “the rabbis’.” There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Yerushalmi version. Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris¹⁵⁴This translation follows B and the parallels. The text of L, “in Sepphoris”, is impossible. that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement¹⁵⁵The High Priest is taken to live in the Temple, and therefore deprived of sexual activity, for seven days preceding the Day of Atonement. In the night of the Day of Atonement he is deprived of sleep (Yoma 1:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yoma.1.7.1">Yoma Mishnah 1:7) to avoid the danger of him having an involuntary emission. If he has one anyhow, he is disqualified for the entire day even if he immediately purifies himself in a miqweh since the disqualification by temporary impurity is not removed by the removal of the impurity until the following sundown (Leviticus.22.7">Lev. 22:7; cf. Maˋaser Šeni 3:2, Notes 21–22.); Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the ram which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From his or from the High Priest’s?¹⁵⁶In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Yoma.47a">Babli, Yoma 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/2⁴ Horayot 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.1">Note 19/II. Josephus transscribes קִמְחִית בֶּן as τοῦ Kαμύδου.” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created?” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

מַעֲשֶׂה בְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן קִמְחִית שֶׁיָּצָא לְטַייֵל עִם הַמֶּלֶךְ עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה. וְנִתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָה שֶׁלְּרוֹק מִפִּיו עַל בְּגָדָיו וְטִימְּאַתּוּ. וְנִכְנַס יְהוּדָה אָחִיו וְשִׁימֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו. אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם רָאָת אִימָּן שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים. שִׁבְעָה בָנִים הָיוּ לָהּ לְקִמְחִית וְכוּלָּן שִׁימְּשׁוּ בִכְהוּנָּה גְדוֹלָה. שָֽׁלְחוּ וְאָֽמְרוּ לְקִמְחִית. מַה מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים יֵשׁ בְּיָדֵךְ. אָֽמְרָה לָהֶן. יָבוֹא עָלַי אִם רָאוּ קוֹרוֹת בֵּיתִי שְׂעָרוֹת רֹאשִׁי וְאִימְרַת חָלּוּקִי מִיָּמַיי. אָֽמְרִין. כָּל־קִמְחַייָא קִימְחִין וְקִימְחָא דְקִימְחִית סוֹלֶת. קָֽרְאוּ עָלֶיהָ הַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה כָּל־כְּבוּדָּ֣ה בַת־מֶ֣לֶךְ פְּנִ֑ימָה מִמִּשְׁבְּצ֖וֹת זָהָ֣ב לְבוּשָֽׁהּ׃ The remainder of the text (to line three of the next paragraph) is missing in B without indication of a lacuna.
¹⁵⁶In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Yoma.47a">Babli, Yoma 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/2⁴ Horayot 3:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.1">Note 19/II. Josephus transscribes קִמְחִית בֶּן as τοῦ Kαμύδου. It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with the ¹⁵⁷The text is not clear here. The text of L is also found in the parallel in Yoma. The text of B, “with the Arab (Nabatean) king” is also the text of Megillah. In the Babli, “with an Arab on the Day of Atonement”. (For some reason, the Russian censor of the Wilna Babli changed “Arab” into “a nobleman”.) The confusion comes from the similarity if ערב “evening” and ערבי “Arab.” The explicit reference to sundown should argue for the version of L. If the Arab was not converted to Judaism, the High Priest would have had to leave the holy precinct on the Day of Atonement, a most unlikely happening before he had finished all his duties.
The version of the text presupposes that the king had immersed himself in a miqweh so he could enter the restricted area on the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, (Chagigah 2:7:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Chagigah.2.7.1">Mishnah Hagigah 2:7) “The garments of the vulgar are severely impure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are severely impure for those eating heave; the garments of those eating heave are severely impure for those sacrificing.” The severe impurity of מִדְרָס referred to here is the impurity of seats or beds used by a sufferer from gonorrhea or a menstruating woman, which makes anyone touching it impure and requires immersion in water and waiting until sundown. Since the king could not sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, he could not have immersed himself with the intention which would make him co-pure with the High Priest. Since the incident happened at sundown, the High Priest was automatically disqualified for the next 24 hours.
While a living Gentile is not under the rules of biblical impurity, rabbinically every Gentile is impure and this impurity cannot be removed by immersion in water (Babli Avodah zarah 36b). king on the Day of Atonement at sundown and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. On that day their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests¹⁵⁸Under the Herodian kings, when the High Priesthood was conferred and removed at the whim of the king.. They sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt¹⁵⁹It is indecent for a married woman to be seen in public with uncovered hair. She was clothed at home as she was for the street and never undressed except in the dark. The Babli notes that many women follow this custom.. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour^159aA pun on the name of Qimhit “flour lady”.. They recited about her the verse¹⁶⁰Psalms.45.14">Ps. 45:14.: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments¹⁶¹According to Rashi’s commentary in Yoma, the argument means that the reward of a woman who behaves with dignity in her home is that her son will be High Priest whose garment is adorned with golden settings for precious stones. (Cf. Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 6, Numbers.3">Bemidbar 3.).

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מִפְּנֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁלּוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תַּחְתָּ֛יו מִבָּנָי֖ו. אֵת שֶׁבְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. וּמְנַיִין לִמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יִלְבָּשָׁ֧ם הַכֹּהֵ֛ן וגו׳. אֶת שֶׁהוּא בָא אֶל אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ בְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶל אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ אֵין בְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא מִתְמַנֶּה לִהְיוּת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֗ר נָגִ֙יד הָיָ֧ה עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם לְפָנִי֖ם יְי עִמּֽוֹ׃ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כַּד הֲוָה בָעֵי מְקַנְתְּרֵהּ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יּוֹסֵי הֲוָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לְפָנִי֖ם עִמּֽוֹ׃ בִּימֵי זִמְרִי מִיחָה. וּבִימִי פִילֶגֶשׁ בְּגִבְעָה לֹא מִיחָה. I could think that the one anointed for war¹³⁷The one mentioned in Deuteronomy.20.3">Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Leviticus.21.10-15">Lev. 21:10–15 (Horayot 2:1" href="/Tosefta_Horayot.2.1">Tosephta 2:1). should (not)¹⁶²Text of L, missing in the two parallels and contradicted by the following text. bring his tenth of an ephah¹³⁹Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. The verse says¹³⁸Leviticus.6.15">Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will stand in his stead brings a tenth of an ephah. But one whose sons will not stand in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where the anointed’s for war son will not stand in his stead? The verse says¹⁶³Exodus.29.30">Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Yoma.72b-73a">Babli Yoma 72b/73a., seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. But one who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, his son will not stand in his stead. From where that he can be appointed as High Priest¹⁶⁴Since the Anointed for War is under the restrictions valid for the High Priest one has to ascertain that his office be subordinate, not coordinate, to the High Priesthood and that an appointment to High Priesthood does not violate the rule that one may not reduce the holiness of one’s position (Horayot 3:2:30" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.30">Note 151).? [As is written,] ¹⁶⁵1Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Numbers.31.6">Num. 31:6.Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them;in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle¹⁶⁶Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3:1:22" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.3.1.22">Berakhot 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁷R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son., he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri¹⁶⁸Numbers.27.1-15">Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea¹⁶⁹Judges.19-21">Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is meant here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123., he did not protest.

וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָי֖ו אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. לִגְדוּלָּה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא נִשְׁאַל בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָי֖ו. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. לִקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. בְּכַמָּה הוּא נִשְׁאַל. אַייְתִיהוּ רבבהו שֶעָלָה מַתְנִיתָא דְבַר קַפָּרָא מִדְרוֹמָא וְתַנָּא. אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא בְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁלְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט וְלֹא בִשְׁמוֹנָה שֶׁלְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבֵד בְּאַרְבָּעָה. וְלָמָּה אָֽמְרוּ אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין. רָאִינוּ כֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט פְּעָמִים שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. וְלֹא בִפְנִים הוּא עוֹבֵד. וַהֲלֹא בַחוּץ הוּא נִשְׁאַל וטוֹעִין דָּבָר מִבִּפְנִים לִבְּחוּץ. וְכִי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן רַבָּן שֶׁלְּכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא טָעָה בֵין תְּקִיעַת הַקְהֵל לִתְקִיעַת קָרְבָּן. דִּכְתִיב וּבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים יִתְקְע֖וּ בַּחֲצוֹצְרוֹת. תְּמִימִים לֹא בַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֶקְפַּח אֶת בָּנַיי אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי שִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי אִימָּה חִיגֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו וְעוֹמֵד בָּעֲזָרָה וַחֲצוֹצַרְתּוֹ בְיָדוֹ וְתוֹקֵעַ. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. שֶׁמָּא לֹא רָאִיתוֹ אֶלָּא בִשְׁעַת הַקְהֵל. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בִּשְׁעַת קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֶקְפַּח אֶת בָּנַיי שֶׁלֹּא הִטִּיתָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל. אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי וְלֹא הָיָה לִי לְפָרֵשׁ. וְאַתָּה דוֹרֵשׁ וּמַסְכִּים שְׁמוּעָה. הָא כָל־הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כְפוֹרֵשׁ מֵחַיָּיו. ¹⁷⁰The text here up to the quote from Bar Qappara’s Mishnah is corrupt, contradictory in itself and mostly missing in B. Since it is a careless copy of the text in Yoma (1:1 38b l. 26) and Megillah (2:12 71a l. 75), an explanation must be based on that text. The paragraph discusses the rules for the priest Anointed for War. It starts with an assertion that the Anointed for War officiates in the Temple in the High Priest’s garb while later it is asserted without dissent that he he barred from any service in the Sanctuary. The entire topic is a reconstruction of the environment in which one has to place David’s inquiries to God as recorded in the books of Samuel.
A consistent whole is found in the Yoma/Megillah text. In the following, standard font is used for the Yoma text; where the Megillah text deviates, it is given in different typeface.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהָיָה (שֶׁהוּא) נִשְׁאַל בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. ר׳ בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָי֖ו אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. אֶלָּא לִגְדוּלָּה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. וּמְנַיִין (מְנַיִין) שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה ר׳ אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָ֖יו. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. אֶלָּא לִקְדוּשָּׁה (לִגְדּוּלָּה) שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. עִמְּךָ הָיִיתִי. לֹא אָמַר עוֹבֵד אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַל. וּבַמֶּה (בַּמֶּה הוּא) נִשְׁאַל. אַייתֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעִיָה מַתְנִיתָא דְבַר קַפָּרָא מִן דְּרוֹמָא (דְּרוֹמָה) וְתַנָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא בִשְׁמוֹנָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא בְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.
And from where that he was asked in eight¹⁷¹The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in Deuteronomy.20">Deut. 20: 1-9, the other to ask the Urim and Tummim oracle on behalf of the army commander. Since this oracle is mentioned only in connection with the High Priest's garments (Exodus.28.30">Ex. 28:30) it is obvious that the Anointed for War must wear one of these garments for the oracle. But since all eight garments of the High Priest form an indivisible unit, he must wear all of them.? Rebbi Abba Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Johanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead¹⁶³Exodus.29.30">Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Yoma.72b-73a">Babli Yoma 72b/73a.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him¹⁷²Exodus.29.30">Ex. 29:30 continues: To be anointed in them and inducted into office. Since the one Anointed for War is anointed, he seems to quality.. And from where that he officiated in eight¹⁷³This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest's garb, "one increases in sanctity but does not decrease" (cf. Horayot 3:2:30" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.30">Note 151). Otherwise one will have to disquality the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary.? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Johanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For holiness after him. In what was he asked¹⁷⁴If R. Jeremiah, in opposition to R. Abba bar Hiyya, speaks about officiating, what is his opinion about inquiring from the Urim and Tummim?? Rebbi Jonah said to him¹⁷⁵The name of R. Jonah's interlocutor is not given. It must be another student of R. Jeremiah (R. Yose?) since he points out that the words of his teacher were incorrectly transmitted and that R. Jeremiah's statement was identical with that of R. Abba bar Hiyya, the companion of R. Jeremiah's teacher R. Ze' ira. In the Yoma.73a">Babli, Yoma 73a, the students of R. Johanan already point out that R. Johanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating., I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead¹⁶³Exodus.29.30">Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Yoma.72b-73a">Babli Yoma 72b/73a.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For holiness after him. In what was he asked? They brought it, רבבהו, a Mishnah of Bar Qappara came from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four¹⁷⁶He holds that as a matter of principle, the Anointed for War could use the eight garments of the High Priest strictly for his duties outside the sanctuary and still be a common priest inside without violating the principle of Horayot 3:2:30" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.30">Note 151. The Yoma.73a">Babli disagrees (Yoma 73a) and bases the rule strictly on that principle.. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a simple priest who sometimes officiated in eight like a High Priest¹⁷⁷In contrast to the Babli, this would be strictly a rabbinic rule, not based on biblical principles, and therefore not a historical reconstruction by a new rule for the days of the Messiah.. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the teacher of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets¹⁷⁸Numbers.10.8">Num. 10:8., blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons¹⁷⁹His oath formula, cursing himself if his statement should be found false. Shabbat.17a">Babli Šabbat 17a. if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly¹⁸⁰The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Numbers.10.3">Num. 10:3) is extended to use trumpets to introduce the public Torah reading in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical Year (Deuteronomy.31.10-13">Deut. 31:10–13).; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices¹⁸¹Numbers.10.10">Num. 10:10; cf. Sanhedrin 3:9:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sanhedrin.3.9.4">Sanhedrin 3:3 Note 155.. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life¹⁸²A similar text in Sifry Num. 75 (a better text Yalqut 725)..

וְכִפֶּ֨ר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֲשֶׁר־יִמְשַׁ֣ח אוֹתוֹ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה נֱאֶמְרָה בְאַהֲרֹן. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מְשׁוּחַ בְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר יְמַלֵּא֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ. וּמְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת אַחֵר הַמִּתְמַנֶּה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֶּ֨ר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן. בַּמֶּה הוּא מִתְמַנֶּה. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף. בְּפֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁמְמַנִּין זְקֵינִים בַּפֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. חֲזוֹר בָּךְ בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר וְנַעַשְׂךָ אַב בֵּית דִּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. The priest shall atone who was anointed¹⁸³Leviticus.16.32">Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified.. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where [to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed;]¹⁸⁴From B and the parallels in Yoma (ו) and Megillah (מ) (Horayot 3:2:33" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Horayot.3.2.33">Note 170). The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively. not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed¹⁸⁵In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oils was available, simple investiture ws enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone¹⁸⁶Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth¹⁸⁷It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Yoma 12b" href="/Tosafot_on_Yoma.12b">Tosaphot Yoma 12b s,v. כהן).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.¹⁸⁸Eduyot 5:6" href="/Mishnah_Eduyot.5.6">Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.
Here end the parallels in Yoma and Megillah.”

הוּא. לֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ. הוּא. לֹא הַנָּשִׂיא. הוּא. לְרַבּוֹת כֹּהֵן מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶי֖הָ יִקָּֽח. פְּרָט לְבוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁכָּלוּ בְתוּלֶיהָ. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁירִין בְּבוֹגֶרֶת. רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. אַף בִּשְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים כֵּן. קוֹמֵץ וְאַחֵר מַקְטִיר. וּמְקַבֵּל וְאַחֵר זוֹרֵק. שׂוֹרֵף וְאֵחֵר יַזֶּה. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק. עָשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ חַטָּאת גְדוֹלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. קוֹמֵץ וְאַחֵר מַָקְטִיר. מְקַבֵּל וְאַחֵר זוֹרֵק. שׁוֹרֵף וְאַחֵר יַזֶּה. רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי רִבִּי יִצְחָק שָׁאַל. הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶן חֲלוּצָה. מֵת עֲבַד לָהּ. שֶׁמֵּת וְיַחֲזוֹר הָרוֹצֵחַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ אוֹ יֵעָשֶׂה כְמוֹ שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְאַל יֵצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. “Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.]¹⁸⁹The beginning of the discussion of Mishnah 5 is noted only in B. ¹⁹⁰Sifra Emor Parašah 2(7), on Leviticus.21.13">Lev. 21:13. Since the High Priest was mentioned in the preceding verses, the pronoun is unnecessary by the rules of grammar. It is added for emphasis; only the High Priest is restricted to marrying a virgin.He, not the king. He, not the chieftain¹⁹¹Since the king was mentioned separately, נָשִׂיא here cannot be identified as the king; it must be a tribal chieftain.. He, to include the priest Anointed for War¹⁹²Since the rules of the High Priest were tied in Leviticus.21.10">Lev. 21:10 to wearing the High Priest’s garments and the Anointed for War is required to wear these when asking the oracle, he is bound by all rules enumerated in Leviticus.21.10-15">vv. 10–15.. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult¹⁹³Leviticus.21.14">Lev. 21:14. The parallels in the Yevamot.59a">Babli, Yebamot 59a, Ketubot.97b">Ketubot 97b, identify the first opinion as R. Meïr’s. It is agreed that if a girl is fully grown, the breaking of her hymen may not be noticed by the man.. ¹⁹⁴The interpretation of this paragraph depends on whether one considers the texts of L and B as two different texts or that the correct text is that of B, except for the name tradition identical with Terumot 8:1:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.8.1.6">Terumot 8:2, Notes 29–31, with the text of L badly corrupted. Since in the characterization of the sacrifice, the text of L is certainly corrupt, the second alternative has much to commend itself. In the text itself, the crucial point is whether to read אחר as אַחֵר “another” or אַחַר “after”. Since the text of L, but not that of B, refers to the High Priest, in the absence of a clear solution both texts are presented and explained.
In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does.
That text reads:
Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others].
As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]¹⁹⁵The reference is to Gittin 5:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.5.6.1">Mishnah Gittin 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. ¹⁹⁶Terumot 8:1:7" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.8.1.7">Terumot 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? [As if]¹⁹⁷Text of B. he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?