משנה: שִׁבְעַת יָמִים קוֹדֶם לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מַפְרִישִׁין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִבֵּיתוֹ לְלִשְׁכַּת פַּרְהֶדְרִין וּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת מַתְקִינִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ. בֵּיתוֹ הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים אִם כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף׃ MISHNAH: Seven days before the Day of Atonement one isolates the High Priest from his house1Meaning his wife, as explained later in the Mishnah. To prevent him from becoming impure should the wife become impure by menstruation. to the Parhedrin2In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113. lodge and one prepares another Cohen because he might become disqualified3Since the entire Temple service of the Day of Atonement has to be performed by the High Priest himself, there must be somebody trained to act as High Priest in case the officiating one becomes somehow impure and unable to continue.. Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, since maybe his wife would die, for it is said, he shall atone for himself and his house4Lev. 16:6., his house means his wife. The Sages said to him, in this case the procedure never ends5Since the substitute wife also could die, one would need an unlimited supply of wives, but the High Priest is biblically restricted to one wife. Disqualification can be foreseen, death cannot be foreseen..
הלכה: שִׁבְעַת יָמִים קוֹדֶם לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כול׳. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה. אֵילּוּ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּילּוּאִים. צִוָּ֧ה יְי. לַדּוֹרוֹת. לַעֲשׂוֹת. זֶה שְׂעִיר שֶׁלְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂעִיר שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. אַמַר רִבִּי בָּא. לְכַפֵּ֥ר עֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ כַּפָּרָה שֶׁהִיא כְזוֹ. מַה זוֹ כַפָּרַת אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ כַּפָּרַת בָּנִים עַצְמָן. אַף זוֹ כַפָּרַת אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ כַּפָּרַת בָּנִים עַצְמָן. HALAKHAH: “Seven days before the Day of Atonement,” etc. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan understood if6That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a. from the following: As he did on that day7Lev. 8:34, referring to the dedication of the Tabernacle, where Aaron and his sons spent seven full days, day and night, at the Tabernacle, far from their families., these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command for future generations8Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.. To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement9The verb עשׂה is used in Lev. 16:15 for the blood of the goat sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. The same verb also is used in 9:7 with reference to the goat sacrificed on the eighth day of dedication which happened to be the first of the first month.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one10The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true. is atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves, the other also must be atonement of Aaron himself and his sons themselves
רִבִּי יוֹנָה בְשֵׁם בַּר קַפָּרָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה. אֵילּוּ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּילּוּאִים. צִוָּ֧ה יְי. זוֹ שְׂרֵיפַת הַפָּרָה. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן צִוָּ֧ה יְי. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן זֹ֚את חוּקַּת הַתּוֹרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּ֥ה יְי לֵאמֹ֑ר. לַעֲשׂוֹת. זֶה שְׂעִיר שֶׁלְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂעִיר שֶׁלְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ. כַּהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. לְכַפֵּ֥ר עֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ כַּפָּרָה שֶׁהִיא כְזוֹ. מַה זוֹ כַפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּשֵׁירָה אֶלָּא בְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. אַף זוֹ כַפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא בְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Bar Qappara understood it from the following. As he did on that day, these are the seven days of initiation. Did the Eternal command, this is burning of the Cow11The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).. It is said here, did the Eternal command, and it is said there12Num. 19:2., this is the low of the Torah which the Eternal commanded, saying.” To make, this is the goat of the Day of Atonement10The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.. Or maybe it is the goat of a New Moon? As Rebbi Abba said, to atone for you, an atonement which is like the other. Since the one is atonement valid only through the High Priest, the other also13The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b. is atonement through the High Priest.
מַה בֵין כֹּהֵן הַשּׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַפָּרָה לַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. שֶׁזֶּה אַפְרָשָׁתוֹ בְטַהֲרָה וְאֵין אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. וְזֶה אַפְרָשָׁתוֹ בִקְדוּשָּׁה וְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דּוּ יְלִיף לָהּ מִן הָדֵין קִרְייָא [שֶׁמַּעֲלָה הִיא בְפָרָה. סִילְסוּל הִיא בְפָרָה. נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא דְלָא יְלִיף לָהּ מִן קִרְייָא] לָמָּה כָאן נוֹגְעִין וְכָאן אֵין נוֹגְעִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא. שֶׁלֹּא יְטַמְּאוּ אוֹתוֹ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. [וְלֹא כָךְ אֵינוֹ טָמֵא מַחְמַת הַזִּייָתוֹ.] אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן. אַף בַּר קַפָּרָא אִית לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלָה הִיא בְפָרָה. סִילְסוּל הִיא בְפָרָה. What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers14Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.) from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow15The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1., one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer16Here one has to read: “who infers.” it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling17Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.
In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow18Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse..
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִי מַה אֵיל הַמִּילּוּאִים מְעַכֵּב אַף שְׂעִיר שֶׁלְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְעַכֵּב. וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵּיהּ. [מִן מַה דָּמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. וּתְמִיהַּ אֲנִי הֵיךְ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מְתִיב קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְהוּא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵּיהּ]. וִיתִיבִינֵיהּ. לֹא מָצָאנוּ דָּבָר מְעַכֵּב לָמֵד מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב לָמֵד מִדָּבָר שֶׁהוא מְעַכֵּב. מָלָק וְהִקְטִיר. מַה מְלִיקָה בְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אַף (מְלִיקָה) [הַקְטָרָה] בְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מְלִיקָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. אֵין הַקְטָרָה מְעַכֶּבֶת. תָּמִיד [תָּמִיד]. נֶאֱמַר תָּמִיד בַּחֲבִיתִּין וְנֶאֱמַר תָּמִיד בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. מַה [תָּמִיד הָאָמוּר בַּחֲבִיתִּין שְׁנֵים עֶשְׂרֶה אַף תָּמִיד הָאָמוּר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר.] לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים מְעַכֵּב. (אַף) [אֵין] חֲבִיתִּין מְעַכֶּבֶת. לְקִיחָה לְקִיחָה. נֶאֱמַר לְקִיחָה בְמִצְרַיִם וְנֶאֱמַר לְקִיחָה בְלוּלָב. [מַה לְקִיחָה הָאָמוּר בְּמִצְרַיִם אֲגוּדָה. אַף לְקִיחָה הָאָמוּר בְּלוּלָב אֲגוּדָה.] לוּלָב מְעַכֵּב. מִצְרַיִם אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת. הֲרֵי מָצָאנוּ דָּבָר מְעַכֵּב לָמֵד מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב לָמֵד מִדָּבָר מְעַכֵּב. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan19Babli 3b.: But since the he-goat of initiation obstructs, does the he-goat of the Day of Atonement also obstruct20In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.? And he accepted it from him21The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.. [On that Rebbi Mana said, I am wondering how could Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish ask before Rebbi Joḥanan and he accepted it from him?] Should he not have objected to him that we do not find that anything obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, nor can anything not obstructing be inferred from anything obstructing? “He breaks the neck”, “to burn in smoke”22In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.. Since (breaking the neck)23This must read: “burning in smoke”. is done on top of the altar, so (breaking the neck) [burning in smoke]24The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4). is done on the top of the altar. Breaking the neck obstructs, burning in smoke does not obstruct25If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.. “Permanently,” [“permanently].” “Permanently” is mentioned for the pan-baked breads26Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13. and “permanently” is mentioned for the shew-bread27The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8..] The shew-breads are obstructive, the pan-baked breads are not obstructive. Since [“permanently” mentioned for the pan-baked breads refers to twelve,] so “permanently” mentioned [for the shew-bread refers to twelve28It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.. “Taking”, “taking”. “Taking” mentioned in Egypt29Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”., “taking” is mentioned for lulav30Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.. [Since “taking” mentioned in Egypt implies a bundle31In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion., so also “taking” mentioned for lulav implies a bundle32Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified..] For the lulav it obstructs, in Egypt it did not obstruct. Therefore we found things obstructing can be inferred from anything not obstructing, and things not obstructing can be inferred from anything obstructing34Babli 4a..
הָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ. מִן הֵן מַייְתֵי לָהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. בְּזֹ֛את יָבֹ֥א אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן אֶל־הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. בָּאָמוּר בָּעִנְייָן. מָה אָמוּר בָּעִנְייָן מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ כָּל־שִׁבְעָה וְעוֹבֵד כָּל־שִׁבְעָה וּמְחַנְּכִין אוֹתוֹ כָּל־שִׁבְעָה. אַף זֶה מַפְרִישִׁין אוֹתוֹ כָּל־שִׁבְעָה וְעוֹבֵד כָּל־שִׁבְעָה וּמְחַנְּכִין אוֹתוֹ כָּל־שִׁבְעָה. וְכִי אָמוּר הוּא בָעִנְייָן. אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּיתַת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲמוּרָה בָעִנְייָן וְלֹא מֵתוּ אֶלָּא בְמִילּוּאִין כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא אָמור בָּעִנְייָן. וְלֵית סוֹפֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדֵין קִרְיָא. אֶלָּא כְאִינַשׁ דִּשְׁמַע מִילָּה וּמַקְשֵׁי עֲלָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וַיִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן כְּבוֹד־יְי עַל־הַ֣ר סִינַ֔י. מַה מֹשֶׁה לֹא נִכְנַס לִפְנַיי לִפְנִים עַד שֶׁנִּתְקַדֵּשׁ בֶּעָנָן כָּל־שִׁבְעָה. אַף אַהֲרֹן לֹא נִכְנַס לִפְנַיי לִפְנִים עַד שֶׁנִּתְרַבֶּה בְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה כָּל־שִׁבְעָה. Since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish has this objection, from where does Rebbi Simeon derive it33The rule that the High Priest is separated from his family for seven days before the Day of Atonement.? Following that of Rebbi Ismael:34Babli 4a. With this Aaron shall come into the Sanctuary35Lev. 16:3., what was said in the matter36Of Aaron’s induction into the High Priesthood.. One separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Also in this case one separates him all of seven days, he serves all of seven days, and one initiates him all of seven days. Is that spelled out in the matter? But since the death of Aaron’s sons is mentioned in the matter37Lev. 16:1. and they died during the initiation, it is as if the matter was mentioned. Does not in the end Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish understand it from the same verse38He still has to explain the same verse used by R. Joḥanan and Bar Qappara, which he himself proved to be inadequate.? But he is like a person who hears a statement and questions it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is: the glory of the Eternal was dwelling on Mount Sinai39Ex. 24:16.. Just as Moses did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was sanctified in the cloud all of seven days, so Aaron did not enter the Holiest of Holies before he was inducted by the anointing oil all of seven days40It is not a biblical requirement but popular usage supported by an aggadic argument..
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. לָמָּה מִיתַת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲמוּרָה בָעִנְייָן וְלֹא מֵתוּ אֶלָּא בְמִילּוּאִים. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר בָּא. בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן מֵתוּ. וְלָמָּה הוּא מַזְכִּיר מִיתָתָן בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. לְלַמְדָּךְ שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיּוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ מִיתָתָן שֶׁלְצַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר בִּינָה. לָמָּה סָמַךְ הַכָּתוּב מִיתַת מִרְיָם לְפָרֲשַׁת פָּרָה. לְלַמְדָּךְ שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֶפֶר פָּרָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ מִיתָתָן שֶׁלְצַדִּיקִים מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן בֵּירִבִּי שָׁלוֹם. לָמָּה סָמַךְ הַכָּתוּב מִיתַת אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁיבּוּר הַלּוּחוֹת. לְלַמְדָּךְ שֶׁמִּיתָתָן שֶׁלְצַדִּיקִים קָשְׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְשִׁיבּוּר לוּחוֹת. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why is the death of Aaron’s sons mentioned in the matter when they died during initiation? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, Aaron’s sons died on the First of Nisan; why does He mention their death at the Day of Atonement41Lev. 16:1.? To teach you that just as the Day of Atonement atones for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Ba bar Binah said, why did the verse append the death of Miriam to the Chapter of the Cow42The rules of the Red Cow and purification from the impurity of the dead are given in Num. 19; the death of Miriam is noted in v. 20:1.? To teach you that just as the ashes of the Cow atone for Israel, so the death of the Just atones for Israel. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, why did the verse append the death of Aaron to the breaking of the Tablets43The breaking of the Tablets and the story of the Golden Calf are quoted in Deut.9:7–29; Aaron’s death is mentioned in 10:6 in a verse which requires further explanation, given in the next paragraph without reference to the Day of Atonement. Lev. rabba 20, end.? To teach you that the death of the Just is as hard for the Holy One, praise to Him, as the breaking of the Tablets.
כָּתוּב וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל נָֽסְע֛וּ מִבְּאֵרוֹת בְּנֵי־יַֽעֲקָ֖ן מֽוֹסֵרָ֑ה שָׁ֣ם מֵ֤ת אַֽהֲרֹן֙. וְכִי בְמוֹסֵירָה מֵת אַֽהֲרֹן. וַהֲלֹא בְהֹר הָהַר מֵת. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב וַיַּ֩עַל֩ אַֽהֲרֹ֨ן הַכֹּהֵ֜ן [הֹ֥ר הָהָ֛ר] עַל־פִּ֥י יְי וַיָּ֣מָת שָׁ֑ם. אֶלָּא מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת אַהֲרֹן נִסְתַּלְּקוּ עֲנָנֵי הַכָּבוֹד וּבִקְשׁוּ הָכְּנַעֲנִים לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בָּם. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב וַיִּשְׁמַ֞ע הַכְּנַֽעֲנִ֤י מֶֽלֶךְ־עֲרָד֙ יוֹשֵׁב הַנֶּ֔גֶב כִּ֚י בָּ֣א יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָֽאֲתָרִ֑ים וַיִּלָּ֨חֶם֙ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל. מָהוּ דֶּ֖רֶךְ הָֽאֲתָרִ֑ים. כִּי מֵת הַתַּייָר הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁהָיָה תָר לָהֶם אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ. וּבָאוּ וְנִתְגָּרוּ בָהֶם. וּבִקְשׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַחֲזוֹר לְמִצְרַיִם וְנָֽסְעוּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן שְׁמוֹנֶה מַסָּעוֹת. וְרָץ אַחֲרָיו שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁלְּלֵוִי וְהָרַג מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁמוֹנֶה מִשְׁפָּחוֹת. אַף הֵם הָֽרְגוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַרְבַּע. לָֽעַמְרָמִי֙ לַיִּצְהָרִ֔י לַֽחֶבְרוֹנִ֖י לָֽעָוזִּֽיאֵלִֽי. אֵימָתַי חָֽזְרוּ. בִּימֵי דָוִד. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב יִֽפְרַח־בְּיָמָ֥יו צַדִּ֑יק וְרֹ֥ב שָׁ֝ל֗וֹם עַד־בְּלִ֥י יָרֵֽחַ. אָֽמְרוּ. מִי גָרַם לָנוּ לַדָּמִים הַלָּלוּ. אָֽמְרוּ. עַל שֶׁלֹּא עָשִׂינוּ חֶסֶד עִם אוֹתוֹ הַצַּדִּיק. וְיָֽשְׁבוּ וְקָֽשְׁרוּ הֶסְפֵּידוֹ וְגָֽמְלוּ לַצַּדִּיק חֶסֶד. וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶן הַמָּקוֹם כְּאִילּוּ מֵת שָׁם וְנִקְבַּר שָׁם וְגָֽמְלוּ לַצַּדִּיק חֶסֶד. 44For this Aggada and more aggadic parts in this Tractate there exists a Medieval copy in the Qonteros Aḥaron of Yalqut Shimˋony reproduced by L. Ginsberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, pp. 311–313, referred to by Q. A short parallel is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a; parallels are in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bešallaḥ, Masekhta de Wayassa 1; Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18. The entire paragraph is discussed by Rashi in his Commentary to Num. 26:13. It is written45Deut. 10:6. According to Num., he did not die at Mosera and never was buried. In the text, the word [אל] has been added from the masoretic text and Q.: and the Children of Israel travelled from the wells of Bene Yaaqon to Mosera; there Aaron died. Did Aaron die at Mosera? Did he not die on Mount Hor? This is what is written46Num. 33:38., Aaron the Priest ascendedMount Hor by the order of the Eternal and died there. But when Aaron died, the clouds of glory47Who had covered the Israelites’ camp from the moment of the Exodus. disappeared and the Canaanites wanted to attack them. This is what is written48Num.21:1., the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who was dwelling in the Negev, heard that Israel came in the way of Atarim, and made war against Israel. What means “in the way of Atarim”? That the great scout had died who had scouted the way for them. They came and attacked them. Then Israel wanted to return to Egypt and returned eight travel stations49As enumerated in Num. 33.. The tribe of Levi ran after them and killed from them eight families50In Q: “16 families”.. Also they killed from them four families, 51A redundant verse in 1Chr. 26:23. (See Rashi, quoted in Note 44).for the Amramite, the Yisharite, the Ḥevronite, the Uzzielite. When did they recover? In the days of David. This is what is written52Ps. 72:6., in his days the just may bloom, immense peace, without moon-periods. They said, what caused us all this bloodshed? They said, because we did not show compassion for this perfect person53To organize due eulogies. In this context, גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד means services to the living or the dead by a person himself, which cannot be bought by money.. They sat down, organized his eulogies, and showed compassion for this Just; then the Omnipresent credited them as if he had died there, was buried there, and they showed compassion for the perfect person.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה אָמַר. עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וּמִכְנָסַיִים מְעַכְּבִין. מַה טַעֲמָא. זֶה וָזֶה עֲשִׂיָּיה. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְעָשִׂ֜יתָ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֤ן וּלְבָנָיו֙ כָּ֔כָה. כָּל־הָאָמוּר בַפָּרָשָׁה מְעַכֵּב. וְאַתְייָא כַּיי דָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. זֶ֣ה הַדָּבָ֔ר וְזֶ֨ה הַדָּבָ֜ר. אֲפִילוּ קְרִייַת הַפָּרָשָׁה מְעַכֶּבֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל־הַמְעַכֵּב לַדּוֹרוֹת מְעַכֵּב כָּאן. [וְכָל־שֶׁאֵין מְעַכֵּב לַדּוֹרוֹת אֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב כָּאן]. מָה אִית לָךְ. סְמִיכָה וּשְׁיֵרֵי דָמִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין לַדּוֹרוֹת מְעַכְּבִין כְּאן. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. צִיץ וּמִצְנַפְתּוֹ שֶׁלְאַהֲרֹן קוֹדֵם לָאַבְנִיטָן שֶׁלְבָּנִים. יְהוּדָה בְּרִיבִי אוֹמֵר. וְחָֽגַרְתָּ֩ אוֹתָם אַבְנֵ֜ט אַֽהֲרֹ֣ן וּבָנָ֗יו. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר לְמִצְוָה. אֲבָל לְצִיווּי וַיַּקְרֵ֣ב מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽת־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיִּרְחַ֥ץ אוֹתָם בַּמָּֽיִם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ וַיִּתֵּ֨ן עָלָ֜יו אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּ֗נֶת. וְאַחַר כָּךְ וַיַּקְרֵ֨ב מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת אַֽהֲר֗ן וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיַּלְבִּישֵׁ֤ם כֻּתֳּנֹת֙. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the tenth of an ephah and breeches obstruct54The presentation of twelve breads which is the daily offering of the High Priest (Note 26) and the initiation of offering of a common priest (Lev. 6:13) as well as the breeches which are part of the priests’ holy garments (Ex. 28:42–43), even though they are mentioned neither in the instructions for the initiation rites given to Moses (Ex. 28) nor in the record of the execution of these instructions (Lev. 8), are necessary and the omission of the offering or failure to wear the breeches would have invalidated the entire proceedings. Babli 5b.. What is the reason? Both are “making”55It is held that every commandment using the verb עשה requires strict adherence to the rules given by this verb. The verb is used for the initiation of a priest in Lev.6:14, for the high priest in Lev. 6:15, and Moses is ordered to “make breeches” for the priests in Ex. 28:42.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, and do with Aaron and his sons so56Ex. 29:35. The verse continues, all that I commanded you., all which is written in the Chapter obstructs. This comes following what Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is the word57Lev. 8:5, the declaration of Moses to the people explaining the initiation rites., and this is the word58Ex. 29:1, the instruction for future initiation rites., even reading the Chapter obstructs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anything obstructing for future generations obstructs here, [and anything not obstructing for future generations does not obstruct here.] What do you have? The leaning of hands59The leaning of hands of Aaron and his sons on the heads of the sacrificial animals (Ex. 29:10,15,19) which for the initiation rites is an essential act but in the rules of sacrifices (Lev. 1–5) is prescribed only for private offerings, and in no case would the failure to follow the requirement disqualify the sacrifice. and the remainders of the blood60The remainder of the blood collected by the Cohen after the required sprinkling of blood on the altar walls has to be poured into the base of the altar. But this act is not required for validity of the sacrifice; if the blood becomes impure after the sprinkling, the blood has to be otherwise disposed of but the sacrifice is unquestionably valid. These cases represent the points of difference between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan. Babli 4b (bottom), switching attributions. which are not obstructing in future generations are obstructing here. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the diadem and Aaron’s mitre precede the sons’ belts61In dressing of the priests in initiation.. Jehudah the great says, you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons62Ex. 29:9, the commandment to Moses.. Rebbi Idi said, what you are saying is as a meritorious deed. But as a commandment, Moses brought near Aaron and his sons and washed them in water, and after that, he put the vest on him, and after that, Moses brought Aaron and his sons near and clothed them with shirts63Lev. 8:6,7,13, description of the execution..
אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי. פָּשֻׁט הוּא לָן שֶׁבְּחָלוּק לָבָן שִׁימֵּשׁ מֹשֶׁה בִּכְהוּנָה גְדוֹלָה. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר יוּדָן וְתַנֵּי לָהּ. כָּל־שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּילּוּאִים הָיָה מֹשֶׁה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּכְהוּנָה גְדוֹלָה וְלֹא שָׁרַת שְׁכִינָה עַל יָדָיו. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁלָּבַשׁ אַהֲרֹן בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָה גְדוֹלָה וְשִׁימֵּשׁ שָׁרַת שְׁכִינָה עַל יָדָיו. מַה טַעַם. כִּ֣י הַיּ֔וֹם יְי נִרְאָ֥ה אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃ Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose64The only talmudic Sage known of this name is the Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta. But since he said, not stated, and R. Tanḥum objected that his assertion already was a tannaitic statement, he must be an otherwise unknown Amora.
Since Aaron entered the High Priesthood only on the eighth day, Moses must have acted as High Priest during the first seven. Babli Avodah zarah 34a as tannaitic statement. said, it is clear to us that Moses officiated in the High Priesthood in a white robe. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, it was stated: 65Sifra Šemini Milluim 14.“All seven days of initiation did Moses officiate in the High Priesthood but the Divine Presence was not drawn through him. When Aaron dressed in the priestly garments and officiated, the Divine Presence was drawn through him.” What is the reason? For today the Eternal will appear to you.66Lev. 9:4.
רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה בָעֵי. עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה הֵיאַךְ קְרֵבָה. (חֶצְייָם) [חֶצְייָהּ] קְרֵיבָה אוֹ שְׁלֵימָה קְרֵבָה. מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וַיָּבֹ֨א מֹשֶׁ֤ה וְאַֽהֲרֹן֙ אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד. [מְלַמֵּד] שֶׁלֹּא בָא עִמּוֹ אֶלָּא לְלַמְּדוֹ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. חֶצְייָם קְרֵבָה. אִין תֵּימַר. שְׁלֵימָה קְרֵבָה. נִיתְנֵי. עַל מַעֲשֵׂה קְטוֹרֶת וְעַל עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּם בַּר יוּדָן. וְלֹא בָעֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֲנָן קַייָמִין. כְּבָר לִימְּדוֹ עֲבוֹדוֹת שֶׁבַּחוּץ. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked, how was the tenth of an epha brought? Was it brought half or [brought] whole67Since the offering of the High Priest had to be brought half in the morning and half in the evening, but in the morning of the eighth day Aaron was not yet High Priest, the question is whether only the afternoon offering was made or the morning offering later in the morning.? Since it is written68Lev. 9:23., Moses and Aaron came to the Tent of Meeting, this teaches that he only came with him to teach him the work of incense. [This implies that] half it was brought. If you are saying that it was brought whole, one should have stated, about he work of incense and the tenth of an epha. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Yudan said, are we not concerned with service inside? He already had taught him about service outside69The breads of the High Priest are burned on the outside altar; no service in the Tent is involved and the prior argument does not prove anything..
מִילּוּאִים מָה הָיוּ. קָרְבַּן יָחִיד [אוֹ] קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר. מִן מַה דִכְתִיב וַֽיִּסְמְכ֞וּ אַֽהֲרֹ֧ן וּבָנָ֛יו אֶת־יְדֵיהֶ֖ם עַל־רֹ֥אשׁ הָאָֽיִל׃ הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. קָרְבַּן יָחִיד. וְהָתַּנֵּי. קָרְבַּן צִיבּוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי אִידִי. נִתְנַדְּבוּ צִיבּוּר וּמְסָרוּם לָהֶם. מִילּוּאִים מֵאֵיכָן לָֽמְדוּ. מִן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אוֹ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׂית. אִין תֵּימַר. מִן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. הַלַּיְלָה הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַיּוֹם. אִין תֵּימַר. מִמַּעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. הַיּוֹם הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַלַּיְלָה. אִין תֵּימַר. מִן הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. לַיְלָה אַחֲרוֹן אֵין לוֹ יוֹם. אִין תֵּימַר. מִמַּעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית. יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן אֵין לוֹ לַיְלָה. What were the initiation sacrifices? Private sacrifice or public sacrifice? Since it is written70Lev. 8:18., Aaron and his sons leaned with their hands on the he-goat’s head, it follows that it was private sacrifice71Since public sacrifices never need leaning on the sacrificial animal.. But it was stated, public sacrifice72Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 13.. Rebbi Idi said, the community volunteered and handed them over to them. From where was initiation deduced73Since it is written (Lev. 8:35) that Aaron and his sons have to sit at the gate of the Tabernacle “seven days, day and night” All sacrifices which are eaten “one day and one night” may be eaten during the day of the sacrifice and the following night.? From sacrifices or from Creation? If you are saying from sacrifices, the night follows the day. If you are saying from Creation, the day follows the night. If you are saying from sacrifices, the last night has no day74Since on the eighth day they were permitted to leave the Sanctuary after the completion of services.. If you are saying from Creation, the first day has no night.
תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֵילּוּ מוֹשְׁכִין וְאֵילּוּ מַנִּיחִין. וְטִפְחוֹ שֶׁלָּזֶה בְּצַד טִפְחוֹ שֶׁלְזֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְפָנַי תָּמִיד. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי מֵאִיר. מִדְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מוֹדֶה רִבִּי מֵאִיר שֶׁאִם פִּירְקוּ אֶת הַיְּשָׁנָה בַשַּׁחֲרִית וְסִידְרוּ אֶת הַחֲדָשָׁה בֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם אַף זֹו הָֽיְתָה תָמִיד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אַף אֵילּוּ נוֹטְלִין וְאֵילּוּ מַנִּיחִין אַף זוֹ הָיְתָה תָּמִיד. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִישִׁיבַת אַהֲרֹן ובָנָיו לָמַד רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כְּמָה דְתֵימַר. בִּישִׁיבַת אַהֲרֹן ובָנָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר יוֹם לַלַּיְלָה וְלַיְלָה לַיּוֹם. וְהָכָא צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר יוֹם לַלַּיְלָה וְלַיְלָה לַיּוֹם. רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵה אָמַר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר יֹום לַלַּיְלָה דַּייוֹ. מָה אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף בִּישִׁיבַת אַהֲרֹן ובָנָיו. מָה אִין תַּמָּן שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ תָּמִיד אַתְּ אָמַר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁמָּסַר יוֹם לַלַּיְלָה דַּייוֹ. כָּאן שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ תָּמִיד לֹא כָל־שֶׁכֵּן. אַשְׁכַּחַת אֲמַר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָיָה שָׁם שֶׁבַע עֲמִידוֹת וְשִׁשָּׁה פֵירוּקִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף הָיָה שָׁם אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה עֲמִידוֹת וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה פֵירוּקִין. תַּנֵּי. כָּל־שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּילּוּאִים הָיָה מֹשֶׁה מוֹשֵׁח אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּמַעֲמִידוֹ וּמְפָֽרְקוֹ וְסוֹדֵר עָלָיו אֶת הָעֲבוֹדוֹת. וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי הֶעֱמִידוֹ וְלֹא פֵירְקוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. אַף בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי הֶעֱמִידוֹ וּמְשָׁחוֹ וּפֵירְקוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁהֲקָמַת הַלַּיְלָה פְסוּלָה לָעֲבוֹדַת הַיּוֹם. אַשְׁכַּחַת אֲמַר. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּרִבִּי יוּדָה הָיָה שָׁם אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה עֲמִידוֹת וּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר פֵירוּקִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי יוּדָה הָיָה שָׁם עֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַת עֲמִידוֹת וְעֶשְׂרִים פֵּירוּקִין. 75One discusses what it means that Aaron and his sons had to sit at the gate of the Tent of Meeting “seven days, day and night”. There, we have stated76Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.: “These take away and those put down. And the hand of one is close to the hand of the other, for it is said77Ex. 25:30., before Me always.” The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s78Since it is anonymous.. But according to Rebbi Joḥanan does Rebbi Meïr agree that if they removed the old set in the morning and arranged the new set in the evening this is also “always”79So even according to R. Meïr the arrangement that the twelve shew-breads were exchanged in a ceremony involving 24 priests so that the table should not be empty for one moment is recommended but not absolutely necessary.. “Rebbi Yose says, also these may remove and those put down; for this also is ‘always’.76Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose inferred this from the sitting of Aaron and his sons80Since it is understood that if there is no Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons could not sit at its gate and, as explained in the following paragraph, the Tent was every day (or also every night) disassembled and reerected, the requirement that they sit there “seven days, day and night” could only mean that every day and every night they were sitting there for some time.. As you are saying, at the sitting of Aaron and his sons it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day81They actually had to be present there only at dusk and dawn., so here it was necessary that the day deliver to the night and the night deliver to the day. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Yose said, it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night82His statement refers to the shew-breads. He reads “always” to mean that there shall be no day on which the table be empty. Since the breads were kept there from Sabbath to Sabbath, he only requires that the new breads be delivered before dusk at the end of the Sabbath.. What does Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph say about the sitting of Aaron and his sons?, Since if there, where it is written “always”, you are saying that it was sufficient that the day deliver to the night, here83At the initiation of the priests. where it is not written “always” not so much more? You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion there were seven erections and six dismantlings84Since it is shown in the next paragraph that every morning the Tent had to be re-erected, and Aaron and his sons were to be present in the sacred precinct day and night, the Tent was erected on day 1, and on days 2–7 was disassembled and re-erected every morning after dawn.. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion here were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings85Since Lev. 8:34 requires that Aaron and his sons not leave the sacred domain during 7 days, but v. 35 states that they have to sit there “day and night”, it follows that they could not leave, and therefore the Tent could not be disassembled, during the days, but it could be disassembled in the night after nightfall, then re-erected for the night, and disassembled after dawn.. It was stated86Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 36; Num. rabba 12(18); Seder Olam Chapter 7.: “All seven days of initiation did Moses anoint the Tabernacle, erected and dismantled it, and performed in it the services87Since Aaron and his sons entered service only on day 8, for the first 7 days Moses acted as High Priest (Note 64).. On the eighth day, he erected it and did not dismantle. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, on the eighth day also he erected, anointed, and dismantled.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that erection in the night is invalid for service during the day88Since it was necessary to disassemble the Tent after the seventh night, it follows that services could be held only in presence of a Tent erected during daytime. Num. rabba 12(18).. You have to say that in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were fourteen erections and thirteen dismantlings. In Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph’s opinion following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah there were 21 erections and 20 dismantlings89Since for R. Joḥanan the Tent has to be standing every dawn and dusk (except for the first dawn) and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah requires (in the interpretation of R. Zeˋira) that the Tent be re-erected in the night but not for service, in 7 days and 7 nights there must be 14 erections and one less dismantling.
According to R. Ḥiyya ben Joseph the tent was erected every morning for services, disassembled and re-erected for dusk, and disassembled and re-erected for the night. In this opinion it makes no difference whether the Tent was disassembled before or after dawn. There are different name attributions in Num. rabba 12(18)..
מְנַיִין לַפֵּירוּקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וַיְהִ֡י בְּיוֹם֩ כַּלּ֨וֹת מֹשֶׁ֜ה לְהָקִ֣ים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֗ן. בַּיּוֹם שֶׁכָּלוּ הֲקָמוֹתָיו. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה צִוָּ֧ה יְי וגו׳. וְלֹא כְבָר תַּנִּיתָהּ חָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְחָדָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. From where the dismantlings? Rebbi Zeˋira said,90Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between. it was on the day that Moses stopped erecting the Dwelling, on the day the erections stopped. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, as he did on that day, did the Eternal command91Lev. 8:34. Since the verse implies that all of seven days the ritual commanded in Ex. 29 had to be repeated, including the erection of the Tent of Meeting.. Was this not already stated? One in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan 92He interprets the verse differently, Note 7., and one in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.
בַּשְּׁמִינִי. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נִמְשָׁח. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לֹא נִמְשָׁח. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נִתְפֵּרֵק. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לֹא נִתְפָּרֵק. אָמַר רִבִּי חָנִין. פְּשַׁט הוּא לָן. מָאן דְּאָמַר. נִמְשָׁח. נִתְפָּרֵק. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא נִמְשָׁח. לֹא נִתְפָּרֵק. מָאן דְּאָמַר. נִמְשָׁח. נִיחָא. דִּכְתִיב וַיִּמְשָׁחֵ֖ם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא נִמְשָׁח. מַה מְקַייֵם וַיִּמְשָׁחֵ֖ם. מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִילּוּ שֶׁהוּא מְחוסָּר מְשִׁיחָה וּמְשַׁחְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. נִתְפָּרֵק. נִיחָא. דִּכְתִיב שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יְכַפְּרוּ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לֹא נִתְפֵּרֵק. מַה מְקַייֵם שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֗ים יְכַפְּרוּ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ. כַּפָּרָה שֶׁהִיא בַדָּם. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. עַל זֶה וְעַל זֶה הָיוּ מַזִּין עָלָיו מִכָּל־הַחַטָּאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּכַּנְסוּ הַמַּיִם תַּחַת הַדָּם. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. תַּחַת הַדָּם וְתַחַת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. On the Eighth {Day}. There are Tannaim who state, it93The Tent of Meeting. was anointed; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not anointed. There are Tannaim who state, it was dismantled; and there are Tannaim who state, it was not dismantled. Rebbi Ḥanin said, it is obvious for us that for him who said, it was anointed it was dismantled; and for him who said, it was not anointed it was not dismantled. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written he anointed them90Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between.. But he who said, it was not anointed, how does he uphold he anointed them? I consider it as if it were missing anointment and you anointed it. Him who said, it was anointed, one understands since it is written94Ex. 29:37. If the altar was not put out of commission in the meantime because the Tent was dismantled, only one atonement would have been necessary. Therefore every day must have seen a new commissioning of the altar., seven days they shall atone the altar. But he who said, it was not dismantled, how does he uphold seven days they shall atone the altari Atonement by blood, as it was stated95Babli 4a. The persons referred to are the High Priest for the service of the Day of Atonement and the priest chosen to burn the corpse of the Red Cow. The sprinkling water has to penetrate the prietly garments below the blood and oil by which they were dedicated.: On both of them they were sprinkling from all purifications96Ashes from all Red Cows conserved in the Temple. that were there, so that the water should penetrate under the blood, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Yose says, under the blood and under the anointing oil.
פִּירֵשׁ בֶּן בַּתִירָה. שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ נִידָּה וִידָּחֶה כָּל־שִׁבְעָה. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֲשׁוּדִין עַל הָנִּידּוֹת. כַּיי דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם הַטְּהוֹרָה. אָֽמְרָה לוֹ. נִטְמֵאתִי פִּירַשׁ מִיָּד חַייָב. שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָייָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ׃ אַשְׁכָּחַת אֲמַר. מַן דְּאָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. צְרִיכָה לְבֶן בַּתִירָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. בֶּן בַּתִירָה. צְרִיכָה לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. אִילּוּ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנַן וְלֹא אָֽמְרָהּ בֶּן בַּתִירָה הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין. יְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִיטָּתוֹ וְיָשֵׁן לֹו בְּלִשְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין. הֲוֵי צוֹרְכָה לַהִיא דְאָמַר בֶּן בַּתִירָה. אִילּוּ אָֽמְרָהּ בֶּן בַּתִירָה וְלֹא אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. הֲוִינָן אָֽמְרִין. יִפְרוֹשׁ מִמִּיטָּתוֹ וְיָשֵׁן לֹו בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. הֲווֵי צוֹרְכָה לַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנַן. וְצוֹרְכָה לַהִיא דְאָמַר בֶּן בַּתִירָה. Ben Bathyra explained99One returns to the discussion of Mishnah 1, explaining why the High Priest has to live in the Temple precinct for seven days prior to the Day of Atonement. Babli 6a, Tosephta 1:1.: Perhaps he would sleep with his menstruating wife and be pushed away all of seven days100Lev. 15:24.. But are Israel suspected about menstruating women101Is not Ben Bathyra’s explanation an insult to the High Priest? If this Ben Bathyra is the early Tanna (and not the later R. Jehudah ben Bathyra to whom the statement is attributed in the Babli), his argument might be an anti-Sadducee statement, since Sadducees and Pharisees accused one another of sleeping with menstruating women by following their sectarian interpretation of the biblical law; cf. Niddah 4:1 Note 3 (SJ 34).? Following what was stated there102Mishnah Ševuˋot 2:5, Notes 80,81.: “If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately he is liable, for his separation is as pleasurable to him as his entry103If the wife becomes impure during intercourse, if then he stops moving immediately and separates after the erection has disappeared, he touched an impure woman, has to immerse himself in a miqweh, and becomes totally pure at the next sundown. But if he separates while still with erection, he had intercourse with a menstruating woman and is severely impure for seven days. Ben Bathyra’s argument presupposes that the High Priest is an ignoramus..” You have to say that he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra, and he who transmits the statement of Rebbi Joḥanan needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Rebbi Joḥanan had said but not Ben Bathyra, we would have said that he may have sex but sleep in the Palhedrin lodge; therefore one needs that of Ben Bathyra. If Ben Bathyra had said but not Rebbi Joḥanan , we would have said, let him not have sex but he may sleep in his house; therefore one needs that of Rebbi Joḥanan , and one needs that of Ben Bathyra.
תַּנֵּי. כָּל־הַלְּשָׁכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ פְטוּרוֹת מִן הַמְּזוּזָה חוּץ מִלִּישְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין שֶׁהִיא דִירָה לַכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַף הִיא גְזֵירָה גָֽזְרוּ עָלֶיהָ. בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. פְּרָט לְשַׁעֲרֵי הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. לְרַבּוֹת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. פְּרָט. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. מָאן דְּאָמַר. לְרַבּוֹת. רַבָּנִן. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ. וְכִי בֵית דִּירָה הֵן. הָתִיב רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְהָתַנֵּי. בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ. לְרַבּוֹת שַׁעֲרֵי הַמְּדִינָה. וְכִי בֵית דִּירָה הֵן. אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּהֶן הֵן נִכְנָסִין לְבֵית דִּירָה. וְהָכָא שֶׁבָּהֶן הָיוּ נִכְנָסִין לְבֵית דִּירָה. “All lodges which were in the Temple were not liable for mezuzah except for the Palhedrin lodge which was the abode of the High Priest for seven days every year. Rebbi Jehudah said, also this is a decree which was decreed about it.” In your gates105Deut.6:9.. There are Tannaim who state, to exclude the gates of the Temple Mount and the Courtyards106Babli 11b, Sifry Deut. 36.. There are Tannaim who state, to include. He who said to exclude, Rebbi Jehudah. He who said to include, the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? In your gates, are these lodgings? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, but did we not state, in your gates, to include city gates107Babli 11a.? Are these lodgings? But through them one enters lodgings, so also here through them one enters lodgings.
חוּלְדַּת הַמּוּלִים חַייֶבֶת בִּמְזוּזָה. חֲלוֹן שֶׁהוּא אַרְבַּע עַל אַרְבַּע שֶׁעֲבָדִים יוֹשְׁבִין שָׁם וּמֵנִיפִין לְרִבּוֹנֵיהֶם חַייָבִין בִּמְזוּזָה. לוּלִים אֵילּוּ עַל גַּב אִילּוּ חַייָבִין בִּמְזוּזָה. הֵן דּוּ דָרַס אַסְקוּפְּתָּא אֲרָעִייָתָא. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה הֲוָה מִצְטָעֵר דְּלָא חֲמָא לוּלָא דְרִבִּי אִילַיי דַּהֲוָה עֲבִיד מִן דַּעְתּוֹן דְּכָל־רַבָּנִן. 108These lines are copied from the discussion of the laws of mezuzah in Megillah 4:12 (ל). They have no direct connection with the topic treated here.Huldat hammulim109A direct translation would be “mole of circumcised”, which makes no sense. The explanation of Qorban haEda, “entrances of cave dwellings” has no linguistic basis and would be superfluous. A possibility is Jastrow’s explanation, ‘loading and unloading dock for mules”, from מולא, Latin mulus, mula, the mule. is liable for mezuzah. A window, four by four {cubits} wide, in which slaves sit and make wind for their masters are liable for mezuzah. Coops one on top of the other are liable for mezuzah; one steps on the doorstep below110If the chicken coops are part of the house and are directly accessible from the doorstep, and the areas of the openings add up to four-by-four cubits.. Rebbi Yose was sorry not to have seen the coop of Rebbi Ilai which he had made according to all rabbis111That it was required to have a mezuzah according to everybody..
לְלִישְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל הָיָה קוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ לִשְׁכַּת בּוּלֶווטִין. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ לִשְׁכַּת בּוּלֶווטִין. וְעַכְשָׁיו הֵן קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ לִשְׁכַּת פַּלְהֶדְרִין. פְּרֳאִיֵּרְתֵין מִילָּא עֲבֵידָה. בְּרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשִׁין הוּא וּבְנוּ וּבֶן בְּנוּ. שִׁימְּשׁוּ בוֹ שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר כֹּהֲנִים. אֲבָל בַּשֵּׁינִי עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹטְלִין בְּדָמִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שֶׁהָיוּ הוֹרְגִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בִכְשָׁפִים. שִׁימְּשׁוּ בוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים כֹּהֲנִים. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שְׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁנַיִם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שְׁמוֹנִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שְׁמוֹנִים וְאַרְבַּע. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. שְׁמוֹנִים וְחָמֵשׁ. וּמֵהֶן שִׁימְּשׁוּ שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. כְּתוּב יִרְאַ֣ת יי תּוֹסִ֣יף יָמִ֑ים. אֵילּוּ כֹהֲנִים שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בַבַּיִת הָרִאשׁוֹן. וּשְׁנ֖וֹת רְשָׁעִ֣ים תִּקְצוֹרְנָה׃ אֵילּוּ שֶׁשִּׁימְּשׁוּ בַבִּינְייָן הַשֵּׁינִי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחַד שֶׁשִּׁילַּח בְּיַד בְּנוֹ שְׁתֵי מִידּוֹת שֶׁלְכֶּסֶף מְלֵיאוֹת כֶּסֶף וּמְחוּקֵיהֶן כֶּסֶף. וּבָא אַחֵר וְשִּׁילַּח בְּיַד בְּנוֹ שְׁתֵי מִידּוֹת שֶׁלְזָהָב מְלֵיאוֹת זָהָב וּמְחוּקֵיהֶן זָהָב. אָֽמְרוּ. כָּפָה הַסִּיח אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה. “To the Palhedrin2In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113. lodge.” Abba Shaul was calling it the council member’s lodge112Greek βουλευταί, ὁι. Since under Persian rule the High Priest also was the political head of the commonwealth, it is reasonable to assume that during his stay at the lodge also the council meetings were held there. Babli 8b.. Earlier it was called the council member’s lodge. But now one calls it the Palhedrin lodge. The ex-priests113Allon’s explanation in Tarbiz 13, p. 16, as προϊεραθέντες, ex-priests, is the correct one., a passing114Reading עבירה for עבידה. The meaning of Palhedrin should be seen as pejorative. matter. In the first {Temple}, where he, his son, and his grandson served, there were eighteen priests serving. But in the second, where they bought it for money, but some say that they killed one another by sorcery115Since in theory the appointment as High Priest is for life, later generations had difficulty to understand how the appointment to the High Priesthood could be on a yearly basis. They had to assume that the acting High Priest died within his year., there served 80 priests, but some say 81, and some say 82, and some say 84, and some say 85. And from these Simeon the Just served for 40 years. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written116Pr. 10:27. Babli 9a., the fear of the Eternal adds days, these are the priests who served in the first Temple, but the years of the wicked ones will be shortened’, these are those who served in the second building. It happened that one sent through his son two measures of silver, full of silver, and their covers silver. Another came and sent through his son two measures of gold, full of gold, and their covers gold. They said, the foal overturned the candelabrum117This popular saying refers to another story, told in Pesiqta dR. Cahana, Ekha: R. Levy said, it happened that a woman honored a judge with a silver candelabrum. Her opponent in the suit went and honored him with a golden foal. The next day the woman went and found the judgment against her. She said to him, My lord, may the judgment be radiant before you like the silver candelabrum. He said to her, what can I do? The foal overturned the candelabrum.
The Yerushalmi text is quoted in Sifry Num. 131; Pesiqta dR. Cahana A hare Mot towards end, Lev. rabba 21(8)..
מָצָאנוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָרֵב הַבַּיִת בָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדִים עֲבוּדָה זָרָה וּמְגַלִּים עֲרָיוֹת וְשׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים. וְכֵן בַּשֵּׁינִי. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּר תּוֹרְתָא אָמַר. מָצָאנוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָֽרְבָה שִׁילֹה אָלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ מְבַזִּים אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת וּמָחַלְלִין אֶת הַקֲּדָשִׁים. מָצָאנוּ שֶׁלֹּא חָרַב הַבַּיִת בָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוּדָה זָרָה וּמְגַלֵּי עֲרָיוֹת וְשׁוֹפְכִין דָמִים. אֲבָל בַּשֵׁינִי מִַכִּירִין אָנוּ אוֹתָם שֶׁהָיוּ יְגֵיעִין בַתּוֹרָה וּזְהִירִין בַּמִּצְוֹת וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְכָל־וֶוסֶת טוֹבָה הָֽיְתָה בָהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹהֲבִין אֶת הַמָּמוֹן וְשׂוֹנְאֵין אֵילּוּ לָאֵילּוּ שִׁנְאַת חִנָּם. וְקָשָׁה הִיא שִׁנְאַת חִנָּם שֶׁהיא שְׁקוּלָה כְנֶגֶד עֲבוּדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָמִים. דְּלֹמָה. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה וְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא וְרִבִּי אָבוּנָה הֲווֹן יָֽתְבִין אָֽמְרִין. בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן נִבְנָה וּבַשֵּׁינִי לֹא נִבְנָה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עָשׂוּ תְשׁוּבָה. וְהַשְּׁנִיִים לֹא עָשׂוּ תְשׁוּבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נִתְגַּלָּה עֲווֹנָם וְנִתְגַּלֶּה קִיצָּם. הַשְּׁנִיִים נִתְגַּלָּה עֲווֹנָם וְלֹא נִתְגַּלָּה קִיצָּם. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר. דּוֹרוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים כְּשֵׁרִים מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אָמַר לָהֶן. עֵידֵיכֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה יוֹכִיחַ. אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הֶעֱבִירוּ אֶת הַתִּקְרָה. וַיְגַ֕ל אֵ֖ת מָסַ֣ךְ יְהוּדָ֑ה. אֲבָל אָנוּ פְעַפָּעְנוּ אֶת הַכְּתָלִים. הָאוֹמְרִים עָ֤רוּ עָ֑רוּ עַ֝֗ד הַיְס֥וֹד בָּֽהּ. אָֽמְרוּ. כָּל־דּוֹר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִבְנֶה בְיָמָיו מַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ הוּא הֶחֱרִיבוֹ. 118Babli 9a/9b. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness119The technical term for incest and adultery (all crimes prohibited in Lev. 18.), and spillers of blood. And so the second time. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Torta said, we find that Shiloh was destroyed only because they slighted the holidays and desecrated the sancta. We find that the Temple was destroyed the first time only because they were active idolators, and uncoverers of nakedness, and spillers of blood. But of the second we know that they toiled in the Torah, were careful about the commandments and tithes, and every good custom120Latin suetum (E. G.). was in them; only they loved money and hated one another without reason. Hate without reason is hard for it is the equivalent if idolatry, and uncovering nakedness, and spilling of blood. An example. Rebbi Zeˋira, and Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, and Rebbi Abuna, were sitting and saying, it is worse since the first time it was rebuilt but the second time it was not rebuilt. Rebbi Zeˋira said, the first ones repented, the second ones did not repent. Rebbi Eleazar said, the first time their sin was brought into the open and so was their end; the second time their sin was brought into the open but their end was not brought into the open. They asked Rebbi Eliezer, are the later generations more qualified than the first? He told them, your witness, the Temple, shall prove it. Our forefathers removed the ceiling, the curtain of Jehudah was lifted121Is. 22:8., but we blew out the walls, who are saying, make bare, make bare, up to its foundations122Ps. 137:7.. They said, any generation in which it is not rebuilt is debited as if it had destroyed it.
מַתְקִינִין לֹו כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל. מַה. מְייַחֲדִין לֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי חַגַּיי. מֹשֶׁה. דְּאִין מְייַחֲדִין לֵיהּ עִימֵּיהּ דּוּ קְטַל לֵיהּ. אוֹתוֹ. אֶחָד מוֹשְׁחִין וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי אֵיבָה. 123From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah1:12.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Haggai said, by Moses8Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him124Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw 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 rivalry125He 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 כְּשֵׁירָה. עֲבוֹדָתוֹ מִשֶּׁל מִי. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבֶן אִילֵּם מִצִּיפּוֹרִין שֶׁאִירַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. וְנִכְנַס בֶּן אִילֵּם וְשִׁימֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו בִּכְהוּנָה גְּדוֹלָה. וּכְשֶׁיָּצָא אָמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ. אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ. פָּר וְשְׂעִיר שָׁלְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מִשֶׁלִּי הֵן קְרֵיבִין אוֹ מִשֶּׁלְכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. וְיָדַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מָה הוּא שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ. בֶּן אִילֵּם. אִילּוּ לֹא דַּייֶךָּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשִּׁימַּשְׁתָּה שָׁעָה אַחַת לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם. וְיָדַע בֶּן אִילֵּם 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 priest126As the Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Megillah 1:12 72a 1. 47, Ševuot 1:8, 33b 1.13). 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. Tosephta 1:4.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid. Whose officiating? Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the he-goat which are brought today, are they offered from his or from the High Priest’s property?6That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a.” 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 לְדַבֵּר עִם הַמֶּלֶךְ (עַרְבִי) [עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים]. וְנִתְּזָה צִינּוֹרָה שֶׁלְּרוֹק מִפִּיו עַל בְּגָדָיו וְטִימַּתּוּ. וְנִכְנַס יְהוּדָה אָחִיו וְשִׁימֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו בִּכְהוּנָה גְדוֹלָה. וְרָאֲתָ אִימָּן שְׁנֵי בָנֶיהָ כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. שִׁבְעָה בָנִים הָיוּ לָהּ לְקִמְחִית וְכוּלָּן שִׁימְּשׁוּ בִכְהוּנָּה גְדוֹלָה. שָֽׁלְחוּ חֲכָמִים וְאָֽמְרוּ לָהּ. מַה מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים יֵשׁ בְּיָדָךְ. אָֽמְרָה לָהֶן. יָבוֹא עָלַי אִם רָאוּ קוֹרוֹת בֵּיתִי שְׂעָרוֹת רֹאשִׁי [וְאִימְרַת חָלוקִי] מִיָּמַיי. אָֽמְרוֹן. כָּל־קִימְחַיָּא קֶמַח. וְקִמְחָא דְקִמְחִית סוֹלֶת. וְקָֽרוּן עָלָהּ כָּל־כְּבוּדָּ֣ה בַת־מֶ֣לֶךְ פְּנִ֑ימָה מִמִּשְׁבְּצ֖וֹת זָהָ֣ב לְבוּשָֽׁהּ׃ 127In addition to the two parallels there are short versions in the Babli 47a, Tosephta 3:20, Lev. rabba 20 (end), Tanḥuma Aḥare 7, Tanḥuma Buber Aḥare9 (Note 127), Num. rabba2(end), Pesiqta dR. Cahana Aḥare (ed. Buber Note 126), Avot deR. Natan A, Chap. 35 (ed. Schechter fol. 35a.) lt happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out to talk to (an Arab king) [the king on the eve of the Day of Atonement]128There can be little doubt that the scribe’s text is the correct one; the corrector’s text is an unjustified emendation. The question is discussed in detail by S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah iv, pp. 805–806. Speculations about the background of this tradition are in H. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden 3/2, Note 19ii (4th. ed., pp. 738–739). 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 Priests. 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 undershirt. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour. They recited about her129Ps. 45:14.: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments
יָכוֹל יְהֵא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר תַּחְתָּ֛יו מִבָּנָי֭ו. אֵת שֶׁבְּנוֹ עוֹבֵד תַּחְתָּיו [מֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.] יָצָא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ עוֹבֵד תַּחְתָּיו. וּמְנַיִין לִמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁאֵין בְּנוֹ עוֹבֵד תַּחְתָּיו. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִׄים יִלְבָּשָׁ֧ם הַכֹּהֵ֛ן תַּחְתָּי֖ו מִבָּנָי֑ו. אֶת שֶׁהוּא בָא אֶל אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ בְּנוֹ עוֹמֵד תַּחְתָּיו. יָצָא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לְשָׁרֵת בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא מִתְמַנֶּה לִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. [שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר] וּפִֽינְחָ֣ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָׄר נָגִ֙יד הָיָה עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם לְפָנִ֖ים יְי עִמּֽוֹ׃ רִבִּי יוֹסֵי כַּד הֲוָה בָעֵי מְקַנְטְּרֵהּ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בֵּירִבִּי יּוֹסֵי הֲוָה אֲמַר לֵיהּ. לְפָנִ֖ים עִמּֽוֹ׃ לְפָנִ֖ים עִמּֽוֹ. בִּימֵי זִמְרִי מִיחָה. בִימֵי פִילֶגֶשׁ בְּגִבְעָה לֹא מִיחָה. I could think that the Anointed for War130he one appointed to deliver the exhortations prescribed in Deut. 20:1–15. should bring his tenth of an ephah131Prescribed for the High Priest in Lev.6:15.. The verse says132Ex. 29:30. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli 72b/73a., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead [brings a tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the Anointed for War whose son will not serve in his stead. From where that the Anointed’s for War son will not serve in his stead? The verse says133Ex. 29:30, seven days shall the priest wear them in his stead, one of his sons. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the Anointed for War who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? 1341Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.[As it is said,] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri135Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea136Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is the R. Yose quoted 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.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא נִשְׁאַל בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָי֖ו [אַֽחֲרָ֑יו]. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. אֶלָּא לִגְדוּלָּה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. [וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁמֹנָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן. מַה תַלְמוּד לֹומַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. לִקְדוּשָּׁה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו.] אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. עִמָּךְ הָיִיתִי. לֹא אָמַר עוֹבֵד אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַל. [וּבְמַה נִשְׁאַל.] אַייְתִי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה מַתְנִיתָא דְבַר קַפָּרָא מִן דְּרוֹמָא וְתַנָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא בִשְׁמוֹנָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא בְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁלְכֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁיְּהֵא עוֹבֵד בְּאַרְבָּעָה. וְלָמָּה אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין. רָאִינוּ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל פְּעָמִים עוֹבֵד בְּאַרְבָּעָה [פְעָמִים בִּשְׁמֹנָה.] אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. וְלֹא מִבִּפְנִים הוּא עוֹבֵד. וְלֹא מִבַּחוּץ נִשְׁאַל. וְטוֹעִין מִבִּפְנִים לְבַּחוּץ. וְכִי רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֲבִיהֶן שֶׁלְּכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא טָעָה בֵין תְּקִיעַת הַקְהֵל לִתְקִיעַת קָרְבָּן. דְתַנֵּי וּבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ הַכֹּ֣הֲנִ֔ים יִתְקְע֖וּ בַּחֲצוֹצְרוֹת. תְּמִימִים וְלֹא בַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֶקְפַּח אֶת בָּנַיי אִם לֹא רָאִיתִי אֲחִי אִימִּי חִיגֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו עוֹמֵד בָּעֲזָרָה חֲצוֹצַרְתּוֹ בְיָדוֹ וְתוֹקֵעַ. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. רִבִּי. שֶׁמָּא לֹא רָאִיתָה אֶלָּא בִשְׁעַת הַקְהֵל. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. בִּשְׁעַת קָרְבָּן. אָמַר לֹו רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אֶקְפַּח אֶת בָּנַיי שֶׁלֹּא הִיטִּיתָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל. אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי וְלֹא הָיָה לִי לְפָרֵשׁ. וְאַתָּה דוֹרֵשׁ וּמַסְכִּים לִשְׁמוּעָה. הָא כָל־הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כְפוֹרֵשׁ מֵחַיָּיו. And from where that he was asked in eight137The 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 be 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.
The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in 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 (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 Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants [in his stead]138Ex. 29:30 continues: To be anointed in them and inducted into office. Since the one Anointed for War is anointed, he seems to qualify.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him139Since the Anointed for War was anointed, he seems to qualify.. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For sanctity after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him, I was with you;140The 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 Ḥiyya, the companion of R. Jeremiah’s teacher R. Zeˋira. In the Babli, 73a, the students of R. Joḥanan point out that R. Joḥanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating. he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. [In how many was he asked?] Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the eight of a High Priest nor in the four of a common priest. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest who sometimes officiated in four like a simple priest. 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 father 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 trumpets141Num. 10:8., blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see 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, Rebbi, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly141Num. 10:8.; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. 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 explain142The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Num. 10:3) is extended to use trumpets to introduce the public Torah reading in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 31:10–13).. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.
וְכִפֶּ֨ר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֲשֶׁר־יִמְשַׁ֣ח אוֹתוֹ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר. לְפִי שֶׁכָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרֹן. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אַהֲרֹן עַצְמוֹ. וּמְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת כֹּהֵן אַחֵר. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר־יִמְשַׁ֣ח אוֹתוֹ. מְשׁוּחַ בְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. הַמְרוּבֶּה בִבְגָדִים מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וַֽאֲשֶׁ֤ר יְמַלֵּא֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ. וּמְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת כֹּהֵן אַחֵר הַמִּתְמַנֶּה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְכִפֶּ֨ר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן. בַּמֶּה הוּא מִתְכַּפֵּר. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר יוֹסֵף. בְּפֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁמְמַנִּין זְקֵנִים בַּפֶּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר אָדָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. חֲזו̇ר בָּךְ בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר. וְנַעַשְׂךָ אַב בֵּית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. The priest shall atone who was anointed144Lev. 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. Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8((4–5).. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; with the anointing oil. From where the one clothed in multiple garb145The High Priest in Second Temple times who was not anointed since the anointing oil prepared by Moses was lost.? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed146In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.? The verse says, the priest shall atone147Since 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 mouth148It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot 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.149Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.
Here end the parallels in Horaiot and Megillah.”
מְנַיִין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּתְקִינִין לֹו כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל. כָּךְ מְקַדְּשִׁין לוֹ אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת עַל תְּנַיי שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע דָּבָר בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִפֶּ֥ר בַּֽעֲד֖וֹ וּבְעַ֣ד בֵּית֑וֹ. בֵּיתוֹ זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אִם כֵּן אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. מָהוּ אֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף. שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אִשָּׁה זוֹ וְתָמוּת אִשָּׁה אֲחֶרֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. עַד דְּאַתְּ מַקְשִׁי לָהּ עַל דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁייָתָהּ עַל דְּרַבָּנִן. שֶׁמָּא יֶאֱרַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן זֶה וִיאֱרַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן אַחֵר. קֶרִי מָצּוּי. מִיתָה אֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה. גָּֽזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מָצוּי. וְלֹא גָֽזְרוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי. הֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. מִיתָה מְצוּיָה. [הָדָא] הַהִיא דְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת מַתְקִינִין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמֵּבִיא גֵט וְהִנִּיחוֹ זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה. נוֹתְנוֹ לָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא קַייָם. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. אֵין מִיתָה מְצוּיָה. וְכָא אַתְּ אָמַר. מִיתָה מְצוּיָה. תַּמָּן בְּיָחִיד. וְכָאן בְּצִיבּוּר. חוֹמֶר הוּא בַצִּיבּוּר. וְהֵן אַשְׁכַּחְנָן דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַחְמִיר בְּיָחִיד. דְּתַנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. לֹא הָיָה שׁוֹפָר שֶׁלְקִינִּים בִּירוּשָׁלֵם מִפְּנֵי הַתַּעֲרוֹבוֹת. שֶׁמָּא תָמוּת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצָא דְמֵי חַטָּאוֹת מֵיתוֹת מֵעוּרָבוֹת בַּקָּרְבָּן. וִיקַדֵּשׁ מֵאֶתְמוֹל. וְכִפֶּ֥ר בַּֽעֲד֖וֹ וּבְעַ֣ד בֵּית֑וֹ וְלֹא בְעַד שְׁנֵי בָתִּים. רִבִּי גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּר אִינְייָנִי בְעָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. לֹא נִמְצָא כְּקוֹנֶה קִינְייָן בַּשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִשּׂוּם שְׁבוּת שֶׁהִתִּירוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. אִילֵּין דְּכָֽנְסִין אַרְמְלָן צָרִיךְ לָכוֹנְסָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כְּקוֹנֶה קִינְייָן בַּשַּׁבָּת. “From where that just as one prepares another Cohen in his stead for maybe a disability will happen to him, so one preliminarily marries to him another wife in case something happen to his wife, as it is said150Lev.16:11., and he atone for himself and for his house; his house is his wife, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Yose said to him, in that case there is no end to it, maybe not only this wife but also the other wife would die151Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8(6). He cannot marry her outright since a High Priest (and any priest aspiring to that position) is restricted to a single wife, as explained later in the paragraph..” Rebbi Mana said, before you question Rebbi Jehudah, question Rebbi Jehudah, question the rabbis! Maybe an emission152Emission of semen, an example of impurity which even if removed immediately disables a person from performing sacral acts before the next sundown. would happen both to this Cohen and to the other Cohen. Emissions are frequent154Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it., death is not frequent. They decided about what is frequent, but did not decide about what is infrequent. We find that Rebbi Jehudah said, death is frequent; that is what we have stated there: “Rebbi Jehudah says, one also prepares for him another wife, maybe his wife would die.” There we have stated154Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it.: “One who brings a bill of divorce and left him old or sick, delivers to her under the presumption that the man be alive.” There you are saying, death is infrequent, and here you are saying, death is frequent. There it is a private matter, here a public act. Is one more restrictive in public acts, as we have stated155Babli 55a, Tosephta Šeqalim 3:3, Gittin 7:4 (Notes 195–107). The horns were openings of boxes where people could deposit money for specified sacrifices and assume that the boxes would be emptied every day and the necessary sacrifices offered. In particular a woman after childbirth who may not eat sancta unless she brought her purification sacrifice may deposit the money and eat sancta after sundown without inquiring whether the offering had actually been brought. A “nest” is a couple of pigeons or turtle-doves.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, there was no horn for nests in Jerusalem because of mixing, maybe one of them156If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her. would die and it would turn out that money of purification sacrifices that must be left to die is mixed up in the offering.” Could he not preliminarily marry her yesterday? And he atone for himself and for his house; but not for two houses. Rebbi Gamliel bar Inyani asked before Rebbi Mana: Is he not like one who acquires something on the Sabbath156If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her.? He answered him, it is because they permitted Sabbath restriction in the Sanctuary. Rebbi Mana said, this implies that those who marry a widow must take her in when it is still daytime, lest he be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath157Since the Day of Atonement follows the Sabbath rules and the High Priest would have to get a new wife immediately if his wife die after nightfall of the day, should not his wife’s death disqualify him from the service since preliminary marriage is an act of acquisition forbidden on the Sabbath? (Since the High Priest is forbidden to defile himself for any corpse, in contrast to a common priest he is not disabled by the death of a close relative.).