Mishnah
1 If the Court ruled to violate one of the commandments spelled out in the Torah and a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is not liable since he depended on the Court. If the Court ruled but one of them knew that they erred, or a student worthy of ordination went and acted following their pronouncement, whether they acted and he acted simultaneously with them, or they acted and he followed their example, or they did not act but he did, he is liable since he did not depend on the Court. This is the principle: The person depending on himself is liable, but one depending on the Court is not liable.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled,” etc. “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress”Leviticus 4:27; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable. Everywhere it is said that a restriction after a restriction is an addition, but here it is said, a restriction after a restriction is to reduce? Rabbi Mattaniah said, it is different here since there is written a restriction after a restriction after a restriction.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues: How do we know that someone who eats with permission is not liable? What is the difference between him who thought that it was ordinary food but it turned out to be a heave offering, who is liable, and him who thought that he was a Cohen but it turned out that he was an Israelite, who is not liable? They said to him, by the instruction of the court. He said to them, I still have a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was Sabbath, who is liable, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out to be a well-being offering, who is not liable? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, I still have a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted but it turned out to be forbidden, who is liable, and him who thought that it was forbidden fat and it turned out to be permitted fat, who is not liable? They did not answer at all. He told them, let me give you my own answer: “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.”Leviticus 4:28 Rabbi Yossi came to visit them; they told him, that problem is hard for us. He asked them, why did you not answer him, “or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”Leviticus 4:28? They told him, Ḥaggai asked the question, Ḥaggai gave the answer.
In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rabbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: How do we know that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, “or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring,”Leviticus 4:28 even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress”Leviticus 4:27; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.
They are liable only for something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. What is the reason? “Something was hidden,”Leviticus 4:13 something that was clear to them and then hidden from them. In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael who said, “it became hidden from him,”Leviticus 5:4 therefore he had known, and he knew, these are two instances of knowledge. In the opinion of Rabbi Aqiba who said, “it became hidden, it became hidden,”Leviticus 5:2-3 two times, therefore he had knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and forgetting in between, something that was clear to them and then hidden from them.
They are not liable unless they void part and confirm part. Samuel said, only if they ruled that it was permitted; but not if they ruled that it was not prosecutable. They are not liable unless instruction was given from the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the reason of this Tanna: “From that place which the Eternal will choose.”Deuteronomy 17:10 Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they ruled unanimously. There, Rabbi Zeʿira said, only if they all rule for the same reason. And what about here?
“And a single person went and acted inadvertently following their pronouncement.” Is there an intentional inadvertent action concerning an instruction by the Court? Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. What case are we discussing? If he knows the entire Torah but does not know this detail, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. If he knows this particular subject but not the entire Torah, he is Simeon ben Azzai for this particular subject. But we must be discussing the case where he knows the entire Torah and knows the particular subject, but he mistakenly believes that the Torah said, after them, after them. If he mistakenly believes that the Torah said, after them, after them, he is not Simeon ben Azzai. As we have stated, I could think that if they tell you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right, you should listen to them? The verse says, “to go to the right or to the left”Deuteronomy 17:11; that they should tell you about the right that it is right, and about the left that it is left. What about it? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Hila: Because everywhere for an inadvertent sin one is not liable but for an intentional one is liable, and here even intentionally he is not liable.
The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual receive atonement through two sacrifices? Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court brings a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court brings a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.
Rabbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah by instruction from the Court. If the Court ruled to eliminate the entire body, since the Court has to bring a bull a private person does not have to bring a female sheep or goat. If they ruled to confirm part and to eliminate part, since the Court does not bring a bull a private person has to bring a female sheep or goat.
Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I am still saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, from the people of the LandLeviticus 4:27. Even all of them, even most of them.” Rabbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I am still saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rabbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him”Leviticus 4:28; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgressLeviticus 4:27; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel, and he is refuted.
Mishnah
2 If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred and reversed themselves; whether they brought their atonement or they did not bring their atonement, another person went and acted on their instructions, Rabbi Simeon declares him not liable, but Rabbi Eliezer says, it is in doubt. What is the doubt? If he remained at home, he is liable; if he went overseas he is not liable. Rabbi Aqiba said, I agree in this case that he is closer to not being liable than being liable. Ben Azzai asked him, what is the difference between him and the one staying at home? For one who stays at home might be informed but the other one could not be informed.
Halakhah
“If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. What case are we discussing? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we are discussing the case where each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rabbi, since Rabbi said, no one but the distinguished member of the Court invalidates. Since Rabbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.
If somebody had selected his purification sacrifice when he became a deaf-mute, or insane, or an apostate, or the Court rules that fat may be eaten, Rabbi Joḥanan said, his sacrifice of purification is pushed aside, Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Aḥa switches traditions, to prevent a statement of Rabbi Joḥanan from contradicting his own statement. For Rabbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One sprinkles the blood of a purification sacrifice or a reparation sacrifice for a person terminally ill. The Rabbi of Caesarea said, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Immi: one switches and one says like this Tanna.
The one who switches has none of these difficulties. For the one who says, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside, who would accept it from him? He has to wait until the Court retracts, or if he was a Cohen who served, sacrificed, and atoned. If he was Simeon ben Azzai, who would accept it from him? He has to wait until the Court retracts, for the one who says, his sacrifice of purification is not pushed aside.
Are consequences of a ruling like the ruling? Do rulings within rulings combine? How is that? If the public ate forbidden fat and designated their sacrifices. If you say that consequences of a ruling are like the ruling, the Court is liable. If you say that consequences of a ruling are not like the ruling, the Court is not liable. The following should be obvious to you: the consequences of a ruling are like the ruling. Do rulings within rulings combine with each other? How is that? If the Court ruled that the fat in the right side kidney was permitted but that of the left side and its cover was forbidden; then they reversed themselves and said the opposite. Most ate the first time, and most the second time. If you say that they combine, they are liable for one. But if you say that they do not combine, they are liable for two. Do two instructions about one kind of work combine? How is that? If a majority ate and a majority slaughtered. In Rabbi Meïr’s opinion they are liable once; in Rabbi Simeon’s opinion they are liable twice. If a minority ate the first time and a minority the second time. In Rabbi Meïr’s opinion they are liable; in Rabbi Simeon’s opinion they are not liable.
Rabbi Zeʿira said, the time span is between them. Rabbi Meïr said, one gives him time until he may hear. Rabbi Simeon said, until he must have heard, and we have stated so: If the Court instructed in the upper market and a single person was in the lower market, or the Court on the ground floor and a single person on the upper floor, he is not liable until he actually heard.
In Rabbi Aqiba’s opinion it remains a doubt. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, if he stands between two domains, between two domains of the Land of Israel and domains of the Land of Israel.
Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Lebo Hamath to the Brook of Egypt. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Huna: The reason of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi is, “at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel,”1 Kings 8:65 etc.
Mishnah
3 If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable; these are liable, for it is said, “something was hidden,”Leviticus 4:13 “something” but not an entire subject.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject,” etc. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, “of a subject,”Leviticus 4:13 not the entire subject. Rabbi Hila said, “of the commandments,”Leviticus 4:13 not entire commandments. Is that written? As Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from the beginning of the paragraph to its end. Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on it, it is a flour offering,”Leviticus 2:6 to include all flour offerings for pouring.
But would you not have eliminated the entire notion of one who watches a day for the next day? If they said, the night is permitted but the day is forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bending? Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of prostrating? If they said, it is permitted to prostrate oneself but forbidden to sink down. Would you not have eliminated the entire notion of taking out? Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if they said, one dried fig is permitted but two dried figs are forbidden. This follows him who said that bringing in and taking out are the same. But for the one who said that bringing in and taking out are two notions, would you not have eliminated the entire notion of bringing in? Rabbi Yose said, not that they said that it was permitted to eat fat; they knew that it is forbidden to eat fat, but the Torah gave permission to the Court to instruct. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, the amount of an olive today and of two olives tomorrow? What about a prophet and seducer? I could think that if they said to you, do not put on phylacteries today, put them on tomorrow, that you should listen to them. The verse says, to walk in them, in all of them, not only in part of them; you would have eliminated the notion of that entire day. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject. Rabbi Mana understood it from the following; Samuel bar Abba said, if they said, one cubit is permitted but two are forbidden. You can say that this is not elimination of the entire subject. And here it is not elimination of the entire subject.
Mishnah
4 If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error and he told them, you are erring, or that the distinguished member of the Court was not there, or that one of them was a proselyte, or a bastard, or a Gibeonite, or a childless old man, it is not liable since it is said here “congregation” and it is said there “congregation.” Since in the congregation mentioned there, all of them were worthy of ordination, also the congregation here all have to be worthy of ordination.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rabbi’s, since Rabbi said, no one but the distinguished member of the Court invalidates. It is written: “If from the eyes of the congregation,”Numbers 15:24 from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, “they shall stand there with you.”Numbers 11:16 Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? Does the court appoint bastards? Rav Huna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rabbi Ḥanania, Rabbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. The one who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But the one who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.
Mishnah
5 If the Court ruled in error and the public acted in error, they have to bring a bull; intentionally but they acted in error, they bring a female sheep or goat; in error but they acted intentionally, they are not liable.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled in error,” etc. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish? Since Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. “Intentionally but they acted in error.” Is there intentional misdeed or error with respect to an instruction by the Court? The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: If not most of the public accepted it. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, if they rebelled against their instruction. What is the difference between them? If they first accepted and then rebelled. In the opinion of the colleagues, since they rebelled, they are not liable. In the opinion of Rabbi Zeʿira, since at the first moment they accepted it, those are liable.
Mishnah
6 If the Court ruled and all the public or a majority acted on their instruction, they bring a bull; or in a matter of idolatry a bull and a goat, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and in a matter of idolatry the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and twelve goats. Rabbi Simeon says, thirteen oxen, and in a matter of idolatry thirteen bulls and thirteen goats; a bull and a goat for each tribe; a bull and a goat for the Court.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rabbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, provided that it is a majority. Rabbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rabbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public.” Rabbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public.” And Rabbi Simeon follows Rabbi Jehudah. Just as Rabbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public,” so Rabbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public.” What is between them? Dragging. Rabbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rabbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. Even though Rabbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes, he agrees that only if the ruling came from the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Rabbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: “From this place which the Eternal will choose.”Deuteronomy 17:10 Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Benjamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public,” as it is written: “A people and a public of peoples will come from you,”Genesis 35:11 and Benjamin was not yet born. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure people celebrate the first Passover and impure the second. Rabbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rabbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the orders became impure, Rabbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rabbi Jehudah.
Mishnah
7 If the Court ruled and seven tribes or a majority acted on their saying they bring a bull and for idolatry they bring a bull and a goat, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, the seven tribes who sinned bring seven bulls, and the remaining tribes who did not sin bring because of them a bull each, for also those who did not sin each bring a bull because of the sinners. Rabbi Simeon says eight bulls, and for idolatry eight oxen and eight goats, a bull and a goat for each tribe and a bull and a goat for the Court.
Halakhah
“If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rabbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority.” Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they are most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they are most of the tribes. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?
Mishnah
8 If the Court of one of the tribes ruled and that tribe acted on their pronouncement, that tribe is liable but any other tribes are not liable, the words of Rabbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, they are only liable for a ruling by the High Court, as it is said, “if the entire congregation of Israel is in error, and something was hidden from the eyes of the congregation,”Leviticus 4:13 not the congregation of that tribe.
Halakhah
“If the Court of one of the tribes ruled,” etc. Rabbi Meïr says, it is the Court’s obligation. Rabbi Jehudah says, it is the public’s obligation. Rabbi Simeon said, it is an obligation of the Court and an obligation of the public. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, here it also refers to the Court. What is Rabbi Jehudah’s reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. What is Rabbi Simeon’s reason? It is said here from the eyes, and it is said there from the eyes. Since from the eyes said there refers to the Court, also from the eyes here refers to the Court. Since from the eyes said there refers to the public, here it also refers to the public. For the one who says, it is the Court’s obligation, the Court has to bring. For the one who says, it is the public’s obligation, who brings? As we have stated, “one imposes and collects, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says, they are brought from the Temple tax.” For the one who says, it is the Court’s obligation, the Court has to lay their hands on. For the one who says, it is the public’s obligation, who lays their hands on? As we have stated, three from every tribe, led by the president of the Court, lay their hands on the head of the bull. “Their hands, the hands of each single one. Their hands on the head of the bull; the bull needs laying on of hands but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands, the words of Rabbi Jehudah. Rabbi Simeon said, the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders; for Rabbi Simeon says, every public purification offering whose blood is brought inside needs laying on of hands.” One objected to Rabbi Jehudah, is it not written, “they presented the goats of the purification offering”2 Chronicles 29:23? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling.
Rabbi Joḥanan asked: If one of the public died, can it be brought in his place? They answered, is it not written, “those who came from captivity”Ezra 8:35? Is a purification offering an elevation offering? But just as an elevation offering is not eaten, this purification offering was not eaten. Rabbi Jehudah says, they brought it for idolatry; Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it was a temporary ruling. Rabbi Jeremiah did not say so but the bull needs laying on of hands by the Elders while the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by the Elders. By whom? Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say, by Aaron and his sons. Rabbi Yose told him, Rabbi Ḥiyya also stated, “he shall put his hands on, they shall put their hands on,”Leviticus 16:21 to include the goats of idolatry for laying on hands but not by the Elders. Rabbi Yose did not say so but the living goat needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron. It is written so, “Aaron shall lean with both his hands on the living goat’s headLeviticus 16:21; the living goat needs laying on of hands by Aaron, but the goats of idolatry do not need laying on of hands by Aaron.” What does Rabbi Jeremiah do with this? He explains it, for a common priest.
Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Following Rabbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rabbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, does that not apply even more to himself? They told him, he can relieve others from their liability since they have something to rely on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to rely on.
Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Ḥisda. There, it was stated: “If the Court ruled, and they themselves acted, and they realized what they ruled about. If they erred in what they ruled, would they be liable? The verse says, if the sin became knownLeviticus 4:14, not that the sinners became known.” Either way, if about fat they ruled they are liable, if about Sabbath they ruled they are liable. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, this follows Rabbi Eliezer; it does not follow Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Yose said, but it follows Rabbi Joshua if they ruled and they did not know whether about idolatry or about any other commandment. If about idolatry by a bull, if about any other commandment a goat. Since it is in doubt whether a bull or a bull and a goat, it is a difference in sacrifice and he is not liable.
Mishnah
1 If the Anointed Priest ruled for himself in error and acted in error, he brings a bull. If in error but he acted intentionally, or intentionally and he acted in error, he is not liable since the ruling of the Anointed Priest for himself is like the ruling of the Court for the public.
Halakhah
“If the Anointed Priest ruled,” etc. “A person”Leviticus 4:2; “if the Anointed Priest.”Leviticus 4:3 This makes the Anointed like a private person. Since the private person is not liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling, also neither is this one liable if he ate on the Court’s ruling. Since the private person is liable if he ate without a ruling, this one also should be liable if he ate without a ruling; the verse says, “for the fault of the people.”Leviticus 4:3 As the people are liable only if they issued a ruling, this one also is liable only if he issued a ruling. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the Court. Since the people are liable if they instructed and others acted, this one also should be liable if he ruled and others acted. The verse says, “as he sinned.”Leviticus 4:3 He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. There are Tannaïm who state that the people are the public. Since the people are liable if others ruled and they acted, this one also should be liable if others ruled and he acted. The verse says, “as he sinned.”Leviticus 4:3 He brings for what he sinned but he does not bring for what others sinned. Rabbi Jacob in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. Only if he is competent to argue about practice. Otherwise, would we say the incompetents give instructions? The anointed who ate following the Court’s ruling is not liable; following another Anointed’s ruling he is liable. Following the Court’s ruling he is not liable, since the ruling of others is nothing compared to their rulings. Following another Anointed’s ruling he is liable, on condition that he instructed similarly.
Mishnah
2 If he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself. If he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public. As the Court is not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part, so is the Anointed. Also for idolatry they are not liable unless they instruct to void part and confirm part.
Halakhah
“If he ruled for himself,” etc. The Court ruled, he ruled following them, and then changed. It is obvious that for him it is the equivalent of uprooting the whole. But if he ruled first, the Court then ruled following him, and afterwards they reversed themselves. Nevertheless is it for him the equivalent of uprooting the whole, or because he ruled first, but his ruling was overturned by their ruling, for him it should not be the equivalent of uprooting the whole? If the Court ruled and he ruled following them, it is obvious that he is not liable if he ate according to the ruling of the Court. But after the Court reversed itself, he is liable. Rabbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah? “If he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself.” Because he ruled for himself and acted for himself. “But if he ruled with the public and acted with the public, it is atoned for him with the public.” Because he ruled with the public and acted with the public, but “if he ruled for himself and acted for himself, it is atoned for himself.”
Mishnah
3 They are liable only for forgetting a topic with action in error; the same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for forgetting a topic with action in error.
Halakhah
“They are liable only for forgetting,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Jeremiah. The Mishnah is Rabbi Meïr’s or has inferences like Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Meïr who said, it is an obligation of the Court. Rabbi Mana said, following Rabbi Meïr. There, it was stated: If the Court ruled and the public acted. If a member of the Court died, they are not liable. If a member of the public died, they are liable. Rabbi Meïr told them, if he relieves others of their liability, does that not apply even more to himself? They told him, he can relieve others of their liability since they have something to rely on; he cannot relieve himself of liability since he has nothing to rely on.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Maybe following Rabbi? If it is the Anointed, it is error in action. But if it is the rabbis, it is forgetting a topic. Rabbi Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. That you should not say, the Anointed and idolatry: Rabbi said, in acting in error; the rabbis said, in forgetting a topic. He said ... because we did not state about the Anointed. But in the former, we did not state about the Anointed but the Anointed is included, and here, even though we did not state about the Anointed, the Anointed is included.
Mishnah
4 They are liable only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice. The same applies to the Anointed. Also for idolatry only for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation and when unintentional by a purification sacrifice.
Halakhah
“They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. “The commandments of the Eternal.”Leviticus 4:2 I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set of sins causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. Rabbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rabbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? Rabbi Zeʿira said: If Rabbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rabbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. Rabbi Yose said: If Rabbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rabbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. Will Rabbi not in the end have to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the difference between a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rabbi Ḥanania said before Rabbi Mana: Would not Rabbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rabbi? Rabbi follows his own opinion, since Rabbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rabbi, as Rabbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. Rabbi Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. You might say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.
Mishnah
5 They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple; one does not bring a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple. But they are liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman; one brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for a positive commandment or a prohibition about the menstruating woman. What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman? Separate from the menstruating woman. The prohibition, do not copulate with a menstruating woman.
Halakhah
“They are not liable for a positive commandment or a prohibition in the Temple,” etc. Cahana said, is it impossible that there was knowledge at the beginning and knowledge at the end and oblivion in between? Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon objected before Rabbi Mana: Could that be for the teachers? He told him, we have a problem with those entering and you bring us teachers? What about it? Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, commandments, commandments. Since commandments mentioned there are about fixed-value offerings, here also about fixed-value offerings.
But one is never liable for any positive commandment in the Torah! Rabbi Mattaniah said, we only came to state matters similar to the matter. How is that? If he entered the Temple impure, he is liable. If he entered pure but became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable. Similarly, if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he leaves on a long path he is liable, on a short one not liable. What is his shortcut? He shall cool down.
“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rabbi Abin said, “Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities.”Leviticus 15:31 Rabbi Jonathan sent to ask Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: “To a woman in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness.”Leviticus 18:19 He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, You and I have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥizqiah: “If lying a man will lie with her.”Leviticus 15:24 Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, “her secretion shall be,”Leviticus 15:24 even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rabbi Yose said, for him I am reading “do not come near”Leviticus 18:19 as “do not separate.” Closeness is separation. Rav Huna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, “be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you.”Isaiah 65:5 Rabbi Zeʿira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rabbi Zeʿira? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.
It is written: “His bow was sitting immobile.”Genesis 49:24 Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: his bow was spanned and relaxed. Rabbi Abun said, his semen spread out and came out from under his fingernails, the arms of his hands were excited. Rav Huna in the name of Rav Mattanah, he lifted his eyes, saw the picture of his father, and cooled down immediately, “from the hands of the noble Jacob.”Genesis 49:24 Rabbi Abin said, he also saw the picture of Rachel, “from there the shepherd, the rock of Israel.”Genesis 49:24
Mishnah
6 They are not liable for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta. The same applies to the Prince, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Aqiba says, the Prince is liable for all of them except the hearing of a sound since the king does not judge, nor may one judge him; he does not testify, nor may one testify against him.
Halakhah
“They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rabbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed who is not apt to fall into poverty. They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these.”Leviticus 5:5 He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them. Rabbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt to fall into poverty or the deepest of poverty. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabbi Aqiba, “this is the offering of Aaron and his sons.”Leviticus 6:20 This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Yasa: may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.
So is the Mishnah, “since the king does not testify, nor may one testify against him.”
Mishnah
7 For all commandments of the Torah where one is liable to extirpation for willful infraction and a purification sacrifice for unintentional infraction, the individual brings a sheep or a she-goat, the Prince a he-goat, and the Anointed or the Court brings a bull. For idolatry the individual, the Prince, and the Anointed bring a she-goat, the Court brings a bull as elevation offering and a goat as purification sacrifice. For a suspended reparation sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable but the Anointed and the Court are not liable. For a certain reparation sacrifice the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Court is not liable. For hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the Court is not liable, the individual, and the Prince, and the Anointed are liable but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, the words of Rabbi Simeon. What do they bring? A variable sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says, the Prince brings a goat.
Halakhah
“For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. “For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. “A person,”Leviticus 5:17 to include the Prince. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.”Leviticus 5:15 Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently. But following Rabbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? “Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice.”Leviticus 7:7 Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue.
So is the Mishnah: “but the Anointed is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, everybody’s opinion, and neither is the Prince for hearing a sound, the words of Rabbi Simeon.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, “and the Sanctuary he shall not leave, nor desecrate.”Leviticus 21:12 Therefore, if he left, he would not desecrate. Rabbi Ashian, Rabbi Jonah: Rabbi Abun bar Cahana found a difficulty. Is it not written, “a widow, or a divorcee, or a desecrated, a harlot, these he shall not marry,”Leviticus 21:14 therefore if he married he would not desecrate? What about it? Ḥizqiah said, “this person would be extirpated from the community.”Numbers 19:20 One whose sacrifice is identical to that of the community. This excludes the Anointed whose sacrifice is not equal to that of the community. They objected, is not also the Prince’s sacrifice not equal to that of the community? It is equal on the Day of Atonement. But his brothers the priests are not equal on the Day of Atonement! They are equal on the other days of the year. Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom said, they are equal in that the blood is given outside.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eliezer said this only because of his extirpation. Rabbi Hoshaia asked: If so, then even for a fixed sacrifice? Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Hoshaia is of the opinion that he is uprooted from the entire paragraph; but Rabbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner. Rabbi Mana said, if Rabbi Eliezer treats him like a rich commoner, then also for hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, as it was stated: Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not differ about hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, that he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat. About what did they differ? About impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, where Rabbi Eliezer says since he is subject to extirpation why should he not bring a male goat instead of a she-goat? They objected: Is there not the Anointed in the case of idolatry where he does not bring a male goat but a she-goat.
Mishnah
1 An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat. An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status and then sinned, or a Prince who was removed from his exalted status and then sinned: The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince is like a commoner.
Halakhah
“An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. “An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. Rabbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one flogs him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rabbi Mana said, it is written: “For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal”Leviticus 21:12; if one may say so, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rabbi Abun said, it is written: “Holy shall he be for you”Leviticus 21:8; if one may say so, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rabbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one flogs him in a court of three judges. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one flogs him in a court of three judges. Does one return him? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rabbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim. Rabbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rabbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He said, no. He told him, I will free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, You and I will go out to meet him. Rabbi Joḥanan sent to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, your example is similar to that of your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: “I shall pass through the Land of Egypt that night,”Exodus 12:12 not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but “when Powers went.”2 Samuel 7:23 They asked him, why did you say these things? He told them, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, “No, my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people,”1 Samuel 2:24 one removes him.
Mishnah
2 If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners. Rabbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God”Leviticus 4:22; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb. The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the tenth of an ephah. Both are equal in the office of the Day of Atonement, commanded about the virgin, and prohibited for a widow, and do not defile themselves for close relatives, and may not let their hair grow or tear their garments, and let the homicide return.
Halakhah
“If they sinned before being appointed,” etc. The colleagues say that the reason of Rabbi Simeon is because greatness atones. Rabbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal. What is the difference between them? Referring to the beginning of the Chapter: “An Anointed Priest who sinned and then was removed from his anointed status, or a Prince who sinned and then was removed from his exalted status. The Anointed Priest brings a bull and the Prince brings a goat”; if there is any doubt whether they sinned. The one who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain sin so it atones for the doubt. The one who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for the one who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third. For the one who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for the one who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal. For the one who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones.
Rabbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone unless his error became known to him. If he ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, even in one period of forgetting he is not liable. A doubt of half the volume of an olive before he was appointed and a doubt of half the volume of an olive after he was appointed: he brings a suspended reparation offering. Do we find anything where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable? We do not find this! If he ate the volume of two olives, the true nature of one of them became known to him, the other remained for him in doubt. Rabbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rabbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. If he ate permitted fat, it atoned. Rabbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable.
One ate the volume of an olive before he was appointed and the volume of an olive after he was appointed. If it was in one period of forgetting, he is liable only for one sacrifice. If the volume of an olive was in doubt before he was appointed, and the volume of an olive was in doubt after he was appointed, in one period of forgetting he is liable only for one, in two instances of forgetting he is liable for two sacrifices.
One ate the volume of three olives but was of the opinion that he ate only two. If he selected one sacrifice, this atones. For Rabbi Joḥanan said, if part of the sin was atoned for, all of the sin was atoned for. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if part of the sin was atoned for, not all of the sin was atoned for.
One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him as a certainty. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. Rabbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.
The argument of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish seems to be inverted. There he says, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. But here he says, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression. There, his reparation offering determines it. Here what do you have?
The argument of Rabbi Joḥanan seems to be inverted. There, he said, if part of the sin was atoned, all of the sin was atoned. And here he says so? Rabbi Joḥanan said this only for the last realization which does not require any sacrifice.
Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rabbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement. Rabbi Zeʿira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.
If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed as the certainty after he was removed. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is liable. Did Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him before he was appointed; the certainty after he was appointed. Following the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say that one is liable. Following the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rabbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rabbi Zeʿira said, if neither itself nor its blood are usable, it dies immediately.
If one ate half the volume of an olive before he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was appointed, half the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. Since no obligation of a sacrifice came in between, do they combine? Let us hear from the following: Before him were three olive-sized pieces. He ate the first but did not realize it; the second ... while he was oblivious of the first. He was informed of the first but was not informed of the second. He ate the third while oblivious of the second. Afterwards he was informed about all of them. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is liable for the first and the second but not liable for the third. Rabbi Yose said, the second depends on his intention. If he wishes, he atones for it with the first; if he wishes, he atones for it with the third. The colleagues compare it to four half-olives. If he was intelligent, he brings one sacrifice; otherwise, he brings two sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together; one for the third and fourth together. ... If he brought for the middle ones, he is not liable for the first and the fourth. Rabbi Yose compares it to full olive sizes. If he was intelligent, he brings two sacrifices; otherwise, he brings three sacrifices. How is that? He brings one for the first and the second together, and one for the third and fourth together. If he brought for the middle ones, he is liable for the first separately and for the fourth separately.
Rabbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves? Rabbi Yose said, this question of Rabbi Isaac is nothing. Does the matter depend on eating half loaves? If one ate the volume of half an olive during the time allotted for this half loaf and another volume of half an olive during the time allotted for that half loaf, is that anything? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one period of forgetting, he is liable only for one sacrifice. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to the laws of Sabbath? If he wove a single thread for one cloth and a single thread for another cloth, is that anything? If he wove several threads for several pieces of cloth in one period of forgetting, he is liable only for one sacrifice. Was there not an obligation for a sacrifice in the meantime, and you say that they are counted together? Rabbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here a change of sacrifice.
If one ate the volume of an olive before he was appointed, the volume of an olive after he was appointed, and the volume of an olive after he was removed from office. In the opinion of the colleagues who say, because high office atones, the office atoned for the first and he is liable for the second and the third. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, he is liable for the first and the second, but not liable for the third. He ate the size of an olive. If it is in doubt whether he ate before he was appointed or after he was appointed, or whether it was before he converted or after he converted, or whether it was before he had grown two pubic hairs or after he had grown two pubic hairs, he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice.
If he ate a full olive sized piece but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt. Rabbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.” As you take it, if it was the Day of Atonement, it atoned. If it was weekday, it is permitted. But did we not state “he ate”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, eating permitted food.
If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and ... after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan he is not liable. Did Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; ... after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say that he is not liable. Following the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rabbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rabbi Zeʿira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.
Rabbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rabbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rabbi Zeʿira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately.
Does Rabbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside? What should be done with it? Rabbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Therefore Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rabbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rabbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped! Rabbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so.
It is written: “If the Prince sins.”Leviticus 4:22 Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, fortunate is the generation whose Prince brings a purification sacrifice. He brings it for his inadvertent sin, does that not apply even more to his intentional one? If its Prince brings, does that not apply even more to the commoner?
“The Prince.” I could think a tribal chieftain like Naḥshon; the verse says, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God,”Leviticus 4:22 and further it says, “that he may learn to fear the Eternal, his God.”Deuteronomy 17:19 “His God, his God” for an equal cut. Since “his God” mentioned there refers to a Prince over whom there is only the Eternal his God, so also “his God” mentioned here refers to a Prince over whom there is only the Eternal his God.
It is written: “There are just people to whom happens what should happen to evildoers and there are evildoers to whom happens what should happen to just people.”Ecclesiastes 8:14 It is fortunate for just people if to them happens in this world what should happen to evildoers; woe to evildoers if to them happens in this world what should happen to just people.
A king of Israel and a king of Judah are both equal, neither of them is greater than the other. What is the reason? “The king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah were sitting in the threshing floor.”1 Kings 22:10 As in a threshing floor. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, but only up to Jehu ben Nimshi. What is the reason? “Your descendants in the fourth generation will sit on the throne of Israel.”2 Kings 15:12 After that they were taking it by robbery.
“And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil,” etc. Rav Huna said, the entire six months during which David was in flight before his son Absalom, his sins would have been atoned for by a female goat for a commoner.
It was stated: Rabbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain was from beginning to end a series of miracles since there were only twelve log to start with, as it was said: “and olive oil one hin.”Exodus 30:24 It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; all the more since the fire swallows, the kettle swallows, wood absorbs! From it the Tabernacle and all its vessels were anointed, the altar and all its vessels, the candelabra and all its vessels, the wash basin and its base. From it Aaron the High Priest and his sons were anointed all of the seven days of induction; from it all high priests and kings were anointed. A king who is first needs anointing; a king who is a king’s son does not need anointing, for it is said: “Do anoint him, for this one is it,”1 Samuel 16:12 this one needs anointing, but his son does not need anointing. But a High Priest who is the son of a High Priest needs anointing even for ten generations. Nevertheless, it is there for the future, as it was said: “a holy anointing oil will this be for Me, for all your generations.”Exodus 30:31
One anoints kings only at a spring, as it was said: “Let Solomon, my son, ride on my mule and take him down to the Giḥon; there Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel.”1 Kings 1:33-34 One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adonijah, Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written, “do anoint him, for this one is it,”1 Samuel 16:12 this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing? But did not Josiah hide it? That means that they anointed with balsam. Jehoahaz because of his brother Jehoiakim who was two years his elder. One anoints kings only from a horn. Saul and Jehu were anointed from a can because their kingdom was temporary; David and Solomon were anointed from a horn because their kingdom was permanent. One does not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Jehudah Antordiya said, because of “the scepter shall not be removed from Judah.”Genesis 49:10 Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of “he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel.”Deuteronomy 17:20 What is written after that? “The Levitical Cohanim shall not.”Deuteronomy 18:1
Rabbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Jehoahaz. But is it not written: “The firstborn Joḥanan, the first in kingdom. The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum”1 Chronicles 3:15? Zedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. His name was neither Shallum nor Zedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: “The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his place,”2 Kings 24:17 etc.
“The anointed with the anointing oil,” in the first Temple. “The one clothed in multiple garb,” in the later Temple. It follows what Rabbi Ina said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: In five things was the later Temple deficient compared with the first. What is the reason? “Go to the mountain, bring wood,”Haggai 1:8 etc. “I should be honored”Haggai 1:8 is missing a ה. These are the five things in which the later Temple was deficient compared with the first. And these are they: The fire, the ark, Urim and Thummim, the oil of anointing, and the holy spirit.
It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rabbi Meïr. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. Why does the verse say, priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb. Here you say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. But there you say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb. Rabbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king. If you would say by a bull, preceding the paragraph about the king, assuming that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and offered his tenth of an ephah it is valid.
“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rabbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry.
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 priest. Rabbi 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 place. He went out and asked the king: “The bull and the ram which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From his or from the High Priest’s?” 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.
It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with the king on the Day of Atonement at sundown and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his place. 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 her the verse: “All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments.”Psalms 45:13
I could think that the one anointed for war should ... bring his tenth of an ephah. The verse says, “in his place, of his sons.”Leviticus 6:22 One whose son will stand in his place brings a tenth of an ephah. But one whose sons will not stand in his place does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where do we know that the son of the one anointed for war will not stand in his place? The verse says, “seven days shall the priest wear them,”Exodus 29:30 etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his place. But one who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, his son will not stand in his place. From where that he can be appointed as High Priest? As is written, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him.”1 Chronicles 9:20 When Rabbi Yose wanted to needle Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri, he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibeah, he did not protest.
And from where that he officiated in eight? Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his place.”Exodus 29:29 Why does the verse say, in his place? For greatness after him. And from where that he was asked in eight? Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Immi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his place.”Exodus 29:29 Why does the verse say, in his place? For holiness after him. In what was he asked? They brought it ... a Mishnah of Bar Qappara came from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. Rabbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he did not officiate? So that people do not say, we saw a simple priest who sometimes officiated in eight like a High Priest. Rabbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rabbi Tarphon, the teacher of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is written: “The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets,”Numbers 10:8 blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rabbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices. Rabbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life.
“The priest shall atone who was anointed.”Leviticus 16:32 Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, “who was inducted into office.”Leviticus 16:32 And from where another who was appointed? The verse says, the priest shall atone. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth. Rabbi Zeʿira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to saying and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.”
“Both are equal in the office of the Day of Atonement,” etc. He, not the king. He, not the chieftain. He, to include the priest Anointed for War. “A woman in her virginity he shall marry”Leviticus 21:13; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Simeon qualify the adult. Rabbi Isaac asked, are these things so in all other things? He takes the fist full and the other burns it; he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that he takes the fistful and the other burns it, he receives and the other throws, he burns and the other sprinkles. Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Jacob bar Idi: Rabbi Isaac asked. If he was standing sacrificing on the altar when it became known that he was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman having received ḥaliṣah, how do you treat him? As if he had died and the homicide might return to his home town or should he be treated as one whose trial had been concluded without a High Priest and he never can leave from there?
Mishnah
3 The High Priest tears his garment below, the common priest above. The High Priest sacrifices while in deep mourning but does not eat; the common priest neither sacrifices nor eats.
Halakhah
Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rabbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rabbi Joḥanan was going up to visit Rabbi Ḥanina; on the road he heard that he had died. He sent, brought his good Sabbath garment, and tore it. Rabbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Jehudah in two things, but Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rabbi Jehudah. If following Rabbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! This refers only to his father or mother, following Rabbi Meïr, as it was stated: One tears the seam for nobody who died except for father and mother, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the seam is a frivolous tear. How is that? It is said for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.
“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rabbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Simeon there is one difference, between Rabbi Jehudah and Rabbi Simeon there is one difference. Between Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah is entering. Rabbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rabbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he does not enter. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he ...; if he was outside, he does not enter. Rabbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rabbi Simeon: “The Sanctuary he shall not leaveLeviticus 21:12, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. ... If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: The Sanctuary he shall not leave. If he left, he may not return.”
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: “Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.”Isaiah 3:26 Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: “the fishermen are in deep sorrow, mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile”Isaiah 19:8? Rabbi Ḥanina said, so is the baraita: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, the words of Rabbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rabbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If someone died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rabbi he is forbidden only that hour. If the person died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rabbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rabbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rabbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning during daytime is biblical. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Huna: Explain it that the person was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.
Mishnah
4 Anything which is more frequent than another precedes the other. Anything more holy than another precedes the other. If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies. The man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to regain his lost property. But the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity. At a time when both are used for immorality, the man precedes the woman.
Halakhah
“Anything which is more frequent than another,” etc. “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull,” for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for. It is preferable that the atoner precede the atoned for, as it is written, “he shall atone for himself, and for his house, and for all the congregation of Israel.”Leviticus 16:17 Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, which one has precedence? Let us hear from the following: A voluntary gift of the Anointed and rams of idolatry were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside. He only said “since their blood enters inside”; this implies that between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the community, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence. If there were standing the bull of idolatry, the ram which accompanies it, and another purification sacrifice. The bull precedes the ram, the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. How is this done? Rabbi Yose said, since the ram is dependent in time on the bull, it is as if the bull preceded it, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull. The bull of idolatry precedes the ram because it precedes in Scripture. Rabbi Samuel the brother of Rabbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes in Scripture. Rabbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective: “After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation”Numbers 28:15; it made it lean on the permanent elevation offering. Between the sacrifice of a man and the sacrifice of a woman, the man’s sacrifice has precedence. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rabbi Phineas said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: A slave brings a bull and his master brings a bull, the slave’s precedes the master’s, as we have stated there: “If the bull of the Anointed and the bull of the community are standing, the Anointed’s bull precedes the community’s bull in all its ceremonies.”
It happened that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Aqiba went to the dunes of Antioch on the occasion of fundraising for the rabbis. There was there a certain Abba Jehudah who gave alms generously. Once he lost his property, he saw our teachers and gave up hope about them. He went home looking sickly. His wife asked him, why are you looking sickly? He told her, our teachers are here and I do not know what I could do. His wife, who was even more pious than he, told him: You have a field left; go, sell half of it, and give to them. He went and did so, came to our teachers and gave them. Our teachers prayed for him and said to him, Abba Jehudah, the Holy One, praise to Him, may fill what you lack. After they left, he went to plow his half of the field. When he was plowing in his half of the field, his cow sank down and broke its leg. He went to lift her up when the Holy One, praise to Him, enlightened his eyes and he found a treasure. He said, my cow’s leg broke for my benefit. When our teachers returned, they inquired about him. They asked, how is Abba Jehudah doing? They answered, who can appear before Abba Jehudah? Abba Jehudah of his cattle, Abba Jehudah of his camels, Abba Jehudah of his donkeys! Abba Jehudah had returned to his former self; he came to our teachers to greet them. They asked him, how is Abba Jehudah doing? He told them, your prayer brought result and compound results. They told him, even though others had given more than you the last time, we wrote you on top of the honor list. They took him, made him sit with them, and recited for him this verse: “The gifts of a man put him at ease; in front of great ones they will make him rest.”Proverbs 18:16
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba held a pledging for a certain house of study at Tiberias. There was one there of the family of Bar Silene, who pledged a pound of gold. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba took him, made him sit with him, and recited for him this verse: “The gifts of a man put him at ease,”Proverbs 18:16 etc.
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish went up to Bostra. Over there was a cheater. God forbid that he was a cheater, but he cheated in charity. He looked how much the community pledged, and he pledged the same amount. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish took him, made him sit with him, and recited for him this verse: “The gifts of a man put him at ease,”Proverbs 18:16 etc.
“The man precedes the woman,” etc. So far if each one was to be kept alive or each one was for clothing. If one was to be kept alive and the other for clothing? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos, the clothing of the wife of a fellow and the life of an ignorant person; the clothing of the wife of a fellow has precedence over the life of an ignorant person because of the dignity of the fellow. He only said that the clothing of the wife of a fellow was like the life of the fellow. But if there was one to be kept alive and one for clothing, the one to be kept alive has precedence.
“Between his lost property and his father’s lost property, his own has precedence. Between his lost property and his teacher’s lost property, his own has precedence. Between his father’s lost property and his teacher’s lost property, his teacher’s lost property has precedence, for his father brought him to the life of this world, but his teacher who taught him wisdom brought him to the life of the future world.” The teacher who taught him wisdom, not the teacher who taught him Scripture. “But if his father was his teacher’s equal, his father’s lost property has precedence.”
What does it help? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if half of his learning was from one and half of his learning from the other. His father’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his father’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His teacher’s lost property if half of his learning was from him and his mother’s lost property if she was divorced from his father, which has precedence? Does his teacher’s have precedence or only if all his learning was from him? His lost property, and his father’s lost property, and his mother’s lost property, and his teacher’s lost property. His own precedes his father’s, his father’s his mother’s, and his mother’s his teacher’s. Is that not a Mishnah, “the man precedes the woman to be kept alive and to return his lost property”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there. He, and his mother, and his teacher, and his father, were in captivity. He precedes his mother, his mother his teacher, and his teacher his father. Is that not a Mishnah, “but the woman precedes the man for clothing and to be freed from captivity”? They wanted to say, if his teacher was not there. He comes to tell you, even if his teacher was there.
Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rabbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him. Rabbi Abbahu came in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rabbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched. Rabbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off his phylacteries for one who had explained a Mishnah to him. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his armpit and one opens straight.” What does “for one he has to go down to his armpit” mean? He had to lower his hand under his armpit until it could be opened. Rabbi Ḥanania was leaning on Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rabbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rabbi Banaia’s house of study and everybody is running to hear him. He said, praised be the Merciful Who showed me fruits while I am alive. In Agadah I explained everything to him except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
“If both of them stand in a house of ill repute, the man precedes the woman.” Why? For a woman it is natural, for a man it is not natural. It happened that Rabbi Joshua went to Rome. They informed him about a child from Jerusalem who was reddish with beautiful eyes, good to look at, and his locks ordered in curls, standing in a house of ill repute. Rabbi Joshua went to check him out. When he came to the door, Rabbi Joshua started and said, “who gave Jacob to be booty and Israel to plunderers, is that not the Eternal”Isaiah 42:24? The child answered him and told him, “it is because we sinned against Him; they did not want to walk in His ways and did not listen to His teaching.”Isaiah 42:24 Immediately his eyes were flowing with tears and he said, I take as my witnesses heaven and earth that I will not move from here until I buy his freedom. He bought his freedom for much money, sent him to the Land of Israel, and quoted for him this verse, “the dear children of Zion,”Lamentations 4:2 etc.
Mishnah
5 A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israelite, an Israelite a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a freed slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.
Halakhah
“A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israelite, an Israelite a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israelite, an Israelite over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a freed slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”
“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, all these 40 days which Moses spent on the Mountain, he studied Torah and forgot it. At the end it was given to him as a gift. Why so much? To return the stupid ones.
When Rabbi Simeon ben Zevid died, Rabbi Illai rose and eulogized him. “But silver has a source,”Job 28:1 etc. “Iron is taken from dust,”Job 28:2 etc. Those, if they are lost, have replacement. But a scholar who died, who can bring us one similar to him? “Wisdom, where can it be found,”Job 28:12 etc. “It is hidden from the eyes of all living,”Job 28:21 etc. Rabbi Levi said, if the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found a find, as it is written, “they lost their spirit,”Genesis 42:28 we, who lost Rabbi Simeon bar Zevid, all the more!
The king has precedence over the High Priest, as it is written: “You shall let my son Solomon ride,”1 Kings 1:33 etc. The High Priest over the prophet, as it is written: “There, Zadok the Priest and Nathan the Prophet shall anoint him as king,”1 Kings 1:34 etc. He mentioned Zadok before Nathan. Rabbi Jonah in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: The prophet folds his hands and feet and sits before the High Priest. What is his reason? “Listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends who are sitting before you.”Zechariah 3:8 I could think that they were common people; the verse says, “because they are men of miracle,”Zechariah 3:8 and “miracle” only means prophecy, as you say, “and he gave you a sign or a miracle.”Deuteronomy 13:1
“A prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for War has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israelite ...” Is not the Levite equal to an Israelite? Rabbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium. Rabbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened. “Why does everybody run after a proselyte woman, but not after a freedwoman? For the proselyte is presumed to have been guarding herself but the freedwoman is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody inquire after a slave? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rabbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ishmael ben Nethaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and killed Gedaliah at Mizpah.
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A head and an Elder, the head has precedence, for nobody is a head if he is not an Elder. What is his reason? “All of you are standing today,”Deuteronomy 29:10 etc. “Joshua assembled all Elders of Israel at Shechem.”Joshua 24:1 Moses preferred heads over Elders; Joshua preferred Elders over heads. Moses preferred heads over Elders because all were his students. Joshua preferred Elders over heads because not all were his students. Moses preferred heads over Elders because he did not need them in conquering the Land; Joshua preferred Elders over heads because he needed them in conquering the Land. Moses preferred heads over Elders because he needed no exertion in the study of Torah, Joshua preferred Elders over heads because he had to exert himself in the study of Torah. Rabbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: Moses preferred heads over Elders because he saw by the Holy Spirit that in the future Israel will be in trouble with governments and their heads will stand up for them.
It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rabbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rabbi Immi? He is a dialectician. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture. The following supports this, as Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? “Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding,”Proverbs 4:5 etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? “Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold”Proverbs 16:16? How does Rabbi Joḥanan explain Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman’s reason? Water is cheap, wine is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without wine; it is impossible for the world to exist without water. How does Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rabbi Joḥanan’s reason? Salt is cheap, pepper is expensive. It is possible for the world to exist without pepper; it is impossible for the world to exist without salt. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rabbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it. But since Rabbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.
Rabbi Samuel, son of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun, preached: “A rich man is wise in his own eyes, but an understanding poor man will think little of him.”Proverbs 28:11 A rich man is wise in his own eyes, this is the master of Talmud. But an understanding poor man will think little of him, that is the master of homiletics. A parable of two people who entered a city, in the hand of one are gold bars, in the other’s hand small change. The holder of the gold bars cannot spend them and survive; the holder of small change can spend it to survive.
Rabbi Aḥa preached: “Scales and balances of justice are the Eternal’s; His work are all stones in the purse.”Proverbs 16:11 “Scales” is Scripture. “Balances” are the Mishnah. “Justice” is the Talmud. “The Eternal’s” are the additions. His work are all stones in the purse; they all take their wages from the same purse.
Rabbi Abba bar Cahana went to a certain place where he found Rabbi Levi installed and preaching: “A man to whom God gives riches, and properties, and honor, and nothing is missing of anything he might desire, but God does not let him take possession to eat from it, for a stranger will eat from it.”Ecclesiastes 6:2 Riches, that is Scripture. Properties, these are practices. And honor, these are the additions. And nothing is missing of anything he might desire, these are the great Mishnah collections, such as the Mishnah of Rabbi Huna, the Mishnah of Rabbi Hoshaia, or the Mishnah of Bar Qappara. But God does not let him take possession to eat from it, that is the master of Aggadah who neither prohibits nor permits, neither declares impure nor pure. For a stranger will eat from it, that is the master of Talmud. Rabbi Abba bar Cahana got up and kissed him on his head, saying, just as you were worthy to preach this standing, may you be worthy preaching this sitting.
If they intended to appoint Elders, from where do they appoint? From Tiberias or from the South? Rabbi Simon said, “Judah will go first.”Judges 1:2 Rabbi Mana said to him, this refers to war. But for ordination, “those who see the face of the king, sitting first in government.”Esther 1:14
Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Elders assembled in the upper story of the house of Gadya at Jericho when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They looked at Samuel Minor. Then the Elders assembled in the upper story at Jabneh when there came a disembodied voice and told them, there are two among you worthy of the Holy Spirit and one of them is Samuel Minor. They looked at Eliezer ben Hyrcanos. They were happy that their opinion coincided with that of the Holy Spirit.
Those of Bar Pazi and Rabbi Hoshaia went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rabbi Hoshaia went in first and left first. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rabbi Immi. “You shall erect the tabernacle according to its ruling.”Exodus 26:30 Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.
Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councilors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councilors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired knowledge in Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rabbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for livelihood, and for clothing, but not for the Academy. Rabbi Abun said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? “It is more precious than pearls,”Proverbs 3:15 even than he who enters into the Most Holy of the Sanctuary.
About this book
Jerusalem Horayot
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.