(י) וְהַכֹּהֵן֩ הַגָּד֨וֹל מֵאֶחָ֜יו אֲֽשֶׁר־יוּצַ֥ק עַל־רֹאשׁ֣וֹ ׀ שֶׁ֤מֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה֙ וּמִלֵּ֣א אֶת־יָד֔וֹ לִלְבֹּ֖שׁ אֶת־הַבְּגָדִ֑ים אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם׃ (יא) וְעַ֛ל כָּל־נַפְשֹׁ֥ת מֵ֖ת לֹ֣א יָבֹ֑א לְאָבִ֥יו וּלְאִמּ֖וֹ לֹ֥א יִטַּמָּֽא׃ (יב) וּמִן־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ֙ לֹ֣א יֵצֵ֔א וְלֹ֣א יְחַלֵּ֔ל אֵ֖ת מִקְדַּ֣שׁ אֱלֹהָ֑יו כִּ֡י נֵ֠זֶר שֶׁ֣מֶן מִשְׁחַ֧ת אֱלֹהָ֛יו עָלָ֖יו אֲנִ֥י יְהוָֽה׃ (יג) וְה֕וּא אִשָּׁ֥ה בִבְתוּלֶ֖יהָ יִקָּֽח׃ (יד) אַלְמָנָ֤ה וּגְרוּשָׁה֙ וַחֲלָלָ֣ה זֹנָ֔ה אֶת־אֵ֖לֶּה לֹ֣א יִקָּ֑ח כִּ֛י אִם־בְּתוּלָ֥ה מֵעַמָּ֖יו יִקַּ֥ח אִשָּֽׁה׃ (טו) וְלֹֽא־יְחַלֵּ֥ל זַרְע֖וֹ בְּעַמָּ֑יו כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י יְהוָ֖ה מְקַדְּשֽׁוֹ׃ (פ)
(10) The priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head or rend his vestments. (11) He shall not go in where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. (12) He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God, for upon him is the distinction of the anointing oil of his God, Mine the LORD’s. (13) He may marry only a woman who is a virgin. (14) A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is degraded by harlotry—such he may not marry. Only a virgin of his own kin may he take to wife— (15) that he may not profane his offspring among his kin, for I the LORD have sanctified him.
כי אתא רב דימי אמר בגדים שכהן גדול משמש בהן משוח מלחמה משמש בהן שנאמר (שמות כט, כט) ובגדי הקודש אשר לאהרן יהיו לבניו אחריו למי שבא בגדולה אחריו מתיב רב אדא בר אהבה ואמרי לה כדי יכול יהא בנו של משוח מלחמה משמש תחתיו כדרך שבנו של כהן גדול משמש תחתיו
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war serves. This priest is appointed to recite words of encouragement to the nation before it goes out to war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). As it is stated: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him” (Exodus 29:29), which is taken to refer to the one who comes after him in greatness, meaning the priest whose rank is one lower than the High Priest, i.e., the priest anointed for war. Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection, and some say it unattributed: It is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the son of the priest anointed for war serves in his place, i.e., he inherits the position, in the same way that the son of a High Priest serves in his place if he is fit for the job;
תלמוד לומר (שמות כט, ל) שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו אשר יבא אל אהל מועד מי שראוי לבא אל אהל מועד ואם איתא מיחזא חזי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכי קאמר כל שעיקר משיחתו לאהל מועד יצא זה שעיקר משיחתו למלחמה מיתיבי משוח מלחמה אינו משמש לא בארבעה ככהן הדיוט לא בשמונה ככהן גדול אמר ליה אביי אלא זר משוית ליה אלא ככהן גדול משום איבה ככהן הדיוט משום מעלין בקדש ולא מורידין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אבא לרבא והאי תנא דלית ליה איבה ולא קא משמש דתניא דברים שבין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט פר כהן משיח ופר הבא על כל המצות ופר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה לא פורע ולא פורם אבל פורם הוא מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה ואין מטמא לקרוביו ומצווה על הבתולה ומוזהר על האלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח ומקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק ונוטל חלק בראש ומקריב חלק בראש ומשמש בשמנה כלים ופטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכל עבודות יום הכפורים אינן כשירות אלא בו וכולן נוהגות במרובה בגדים חוץ מפר הבא על כל המצות וכולן נוהגות במשוח שעבר חוץ מפר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה וכולן אין נוהגות במשוח מלחמה חוץ מחמשה דברים האמורין בפרשה לא פורע ולא פורם ולא מטמא לקרוביו ומצווה על הבתולה ומוזהר על האלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח כדברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אינו מחזיר כי לית ליה איבה בדכוותיה בדזוטר מיניה אית ליה יתיב רבי אבהו וקאמר לה להא שמעתא משמיה דרבי יוחנן אהדרינהו רבי אמי ורבי אסי לאפייהו איכא דאמרי רבי חייא בר אבא אמרה ואהדרינהו רבי אמי ורבי אסי לאפייהו מתקיף לה רב פפא בשלמא רבי אבהו משום יקרא דבי קיסר אלא לרבי חייא בר אבא נימרו ליה מימר לא אמר רבי יוחנן הכי כי אתא רבין אמר נשאל איתמר תניא נמי הכי בגדים שכ"ג משמש בהן משוח מלחמה נשאל בהן תנו רבנן כיצד שואלין השואל פניו כלפי נשאל והנשאל פניו כלפי שכינה השואל אומר (שמואל א ל, ח) ארדוף אחרי הגדוד הזה והנשאל אומר כה אמר ה' עלה והצלח רבי יהודה אומר אין צריך לומר כה אמר ה' אלא עלה והצלח אין שואלין בקול שנאמר (במדבר כז, כא) ושאל לו ולא מהרהר בלבו שנאמר ושאל לו לפני ה' אלא כדרך שאמרה חנה בתפלתה שנאמר (שמואל א א, יג) וחנה היא מדברת על לבה אין שואלין שני דברים כאחד ואם שאל אין מחזירין אלא אחד ואין מחזירין לו אלא ראשון שנאמר (שמואל א כג, יא) היסגירוני בעלי קעילה בידו הירד שאול וגו' ויאמר ה' ירד והא אמרת אין מחזירין אלא ראשון דוד שאל
therefore, the verse states: “Seven days shall he wear them, the one who serves in his stead from among his sons, who comes into the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 29:30). The verse describes a son serving in the place of his father, indicating that the position is inherited. The conclusion of the verse implies that the rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies only to a High Priest who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting, but not to the priest anointed for war. Based on this baraita, the following challenge is posed: And if it is so, since the priest anointed for war also serves wearing the same garments as the High Priest, he is also fit to enter the Tent of Meeting and should bequeath his position to his son. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what the baraita is saying: The rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies to anyone for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is to come and serve in the Tent of Meeting. That excludes this priest for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is for war. The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Dimi’s claim: It was taught in a baraita that the priest anointed for war serves neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight garments, like a High Priest. Abaye said to him: Would you make him like a non-priest? If he dresses like neither a High Priest nor a common priest, then effectively he is like a non-priest, but that is certainly not true. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is that the priest anointed for war does not dress like a High Priest due to the animosity that could be caused between him and the High Priest if they both wore similar garments. Therefore, although according to Torah law the priest anointed for war should dress like a High Priest, the Sages decreed that he should not, out of concern that animosity might result. And he does not dress like a common priest, due to the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the priest anointed for war attained the level of sanctity of a High Priest, he may not now be demoted to serve as an ordinary priest and dress accordingly. Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But there is this tanna of the following baraita who does not accept the concern of animosity as a reason to prevent one from wearing similar garments, and yet even according to him the priest anointed for war does not serve wearing the eight garments. Clearly, there must be a different reason. As it was taught in a baraita: The matters in which there are differences between a High Priest and a common priest are as follows:
The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally;
And the bull of Yom Kippur;
And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day.
Only the High Priest brings the above offerings. In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them.
And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice.
And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants.
And he serves wearing eight garments.
And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects.
And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him. And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil. And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day. And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10–15):
When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result. The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not RabbiAbbahu but Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see Ḥagiga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect. The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. § The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim, in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it. The one who asks says his question, e.g.: “Shall I pursue after this troop?” (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told. One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: “And…who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God” (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: “By his mouth” (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: “Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear. One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?” (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: “And God said: He will come down.” (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions
The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally;
And the bull of Yom Kippur;
And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day.
Only the High Priest brings the above offerings. In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them.
And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice.
And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants.
And he serves wearing eight garments.
And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects.
And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him. And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil. And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day. And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10–15):
When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do.
And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives.
And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow.
And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result. The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not RabbiAbbahu but Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see Ḥagiga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect. The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. § The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim, in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it. The one who asks says his question, e.g.: “Shall I pursue after this troop?” (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told. One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim” (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: “And…who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God” (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: “By his mouth” (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: “Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear. One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?” (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: “And God said: He will come down.” (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָּדוֹל מִכָּל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנוֹי בְּכֹחַ בְּעשֶׁר בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמַרְאֶה. אֵין לוֹ מָמוֹן כָּל הַכֹּהֲנִים נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִשֶּׁלָּהֶן כָּל אֶחָד לְפִי עָשְׁרוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשִׁיר יוֹתֵר מֵעָשִׁיר שֶׁבְּכֻלָּן:
The high priest had to excel his fellow priests in beauty, strength, wealth, wisdom, and appearance. If he had no wealth, all the priests gave him of their own, each according to his means, until he became richer than the richest among them.
וְאֵין אֶחָד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מְעַכֵּב אֶלָּא כָּל זֶה לְמִצְוָה אֲבָל אִם נִתְרַבָּה מִכָּל מָקוֹם נִתְרַבָּה:
אֵין מַעֲמִידִין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אֶלָּא בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אֶחָד וְשִׁבְעִים. וְאֵין מוֹשְׁחִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ו יג) "בְּיוֹם הִמָּשַׁח אֹתוֹ". וְכֵן אִם נִתְרַבָּה בִּבְגָדִים בִּלְבַד אֵין מְרַבִּין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם. וְאֵין מְמַנִּין שְׁנֵי כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים כְּאַחַת:
Only the supreme court of seventy-one was entitled to appoint a high priest. He was anointed only during daytime, as it is written: "In the day he is anointed" (Leviticus 6:13).— —
כְּשֶׁיָּמוּת הַמֶּלֶךְ אוֹ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁאָר הַמְמֻנִּים מַעֲמִידִין תַּחְתָּיו בְּנוֹ אוֹ הָרָאוּי לְיָרְשׁוֹ. וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם לְנַחֲלָה קוֹדֵם לִשְׂרָרוֹת הַמֵּת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מְמַלֵּא מְקוֹמוֹ בְּחָכְמָה אוֹ בְּיִרְאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּמוֹתוֹ בְּחָכְמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמֶלֶךְ (דברים יז כ) "הוּא וּבָנָיו בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל". מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת יְרֻשָּׁה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל שְׂרָרָה שֶׁבְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁהַזּוֹכֶה לָהּ זוֹכֶה לְעַצְמוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ:
לְבִלְתִּ֤י רוּם־לְבָבוֹ֙ מֵֽאֶחָ֔יו וּלְבִלְתִּ֛י ס֥וּר מִן־הַמִּצְוָ֖ה יָמִ֣ין וּשְׂמֹ֑אול לְמַעַן֩ יַאֲרִ֨יךְ יָמִ֧ים עַל־מַמְלַכְתּ֛וֹ ה֥וּא וּבָנָ֖יו בְּקֶ֥רֶב יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (ס)
Thus he will not act haughtily toward his fellows or deviate from the Instruction to the right or to the left, to the end that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel.
This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam's decision has frequently been challenged.
Maharshdam (Yoreh De'ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states "Torah cannot be inherited."
However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De'ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions.
The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer's lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father's position by inheritance.
In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father's position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father's position at all, it may be given to another person.