Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 18, scan section 74

Rabbi questioned R. Hyye: I, who am a prince, am I liable to a he-goat? And he answered: There are your rivals in Baby- lon ; Rabha objected to him from the following: Kings of Israel and the kings of the house of David have to bring their offerings Separately? And he answered: They were not dependent each upon the other, while we are dependent on those in Babylon. R. Safra taught the above as follows: Rabbi questioned Hyye: I, e.g., who am a prince, am I liable to a he-goat? And he answered: In Babylon there is a tribe (Shebet), etc. (Sec Sanhedrin, p. .) MISHNA///.: And who is the anointed priest? He who was consecrated to priesthood by the holy ointment and not merely by the many (8) raiments. However, between these two kinds of priests there exists no other difference except the bul- lock-sacrifice attending the violations of any of the command- ments. Nor is there any difference between the priest in oflfice and the retired priest except the bullock of the day of atonement and the tenth of the Eifah. Both are equal as regards the ser- vices on the day of atonement, the command to marry a virgin, the prohibition from marrying a widow, from defiling themselves to a dead relative, from wild-growing of the hair, from tearing their garments; finally both effect through their respective deaths the return of the homicide from exile. GEMARA: The rabbis taught: In the oil for anointing which was made by Moses, they used to soak the roots, so R. Jehudah, etc. (Here it is repeated from Tract Kherithoth, 5 b. to 6 b. , and as there is its proper place, we omit it here.) The rabbis taught: The anointed, and lest one say it means the king, it adds " the priest." And lest one say, that also he who was sanctified by his dress only, therefore " the anointed. TRACT HORIOTH (DECISIONS). 23 But still one may say that it means the priest anointed for the war time, therefore and " the anointed priest," i.e., the distin- guished one who has no one anointed over him. There is no difference between the anointed,'' etc. Our Mishna is not in accordance with R. Nair, as he holds that he who was sanctified by the eight dresses, has to bring a bullock for the transgression of all the negative commandments which are to be found in the Scripture; while the sages did not agree with him. But how can you say that our Mishna is in accord- ance with the rabbis? Does not the latter part state, " There is no difference between a priest who is still in his ofifice and one retired, but concerning the bullock of the day of atonement and the tenth of Eipha, " all which can be only in accordance with R. Nair, as we have learned in the following: If it happened to the high-priest a thing which makes him temporarily unfit for service, so that he was substituted by another priest, then the former returns to his office and his substitute remains with all the obligations of a high-priest, so R. Nair; R. Jose, however, maintains that the substitute is no more fit either as a high- priest or as a simple one. And he added; It happened to Joseph b. Ailim of Ceporas that something made him temporarily unfit, to serve as high-priest, and another one was substituted, and his brethren the priests did not allow his substitute to be either a high-priest or a common one: a high-priest because of animosity, and a common one because of the rule that one may be raised in sanctification but not lowered; hence, we see that the first part of the Mishna is in accordance with the rabbis, and the second with R. Mair, Said R. 'Hisda: So it is. But R. Jose said: It is in accordance with Rabbi, who edited the Mishna in question in accordance with different Tanaim. Rabha, how- ever, said: It is in accordance with R. Simeon, who holds with R. Mair in one case, but differs with him in the other. (The diffeTence of opinion of the above Tanaim is translated already in Tract Joma.) The Mishna states: "Except the five things which are said in the portion regarding a high-priest." Whence is this de- duced? From what the rabbis taught [Lev. xxi. 10]: "And the priest that is highest among his brethren," means the high- priest. " Upon whose head anointing oil hath been poured," means that who was appointed for the war. " And who hath been consecrated to put on the garments," means that who was sanctified by the garments only; and to all them it says. 24 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. " Shall not let the hair of his head grow long, and his garments shall he not rend. Neither shall he go in to any dead body," etc. And lest one says that they all may perform the holy ser- vice in the first day in which death occurs in his family, it reads, " For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him," which means, upon him but not upon his appointed colleague, i.e., the appointed for the war, and as the latter was separated from the above, one might say that he is also commanded to take a virgin; therefore [ibid. 13]: "And he shall take a wife in her virgin state," he and not some other one. However, in the latter case Tanaim differ. MISHNA IV. : The high-priest rends his garment from be- low; the common priest, from the top. The former, while in mourning, may offer sacrifices but not eat thereof; the latter, if in mourning, must do neither the one nor the other. Said Rabh : From below means literally he shall tear from the bottom of the garment. Samuel, however, says: From the bot- tom of the seam, and on top means on the top of the seam. But both must be on the bottom of the collar. MISHNA V. : What is more common precedes the less com- mon ; the more holy precedes the less sanctified. If the bullock of the anointed priest and that of the congregation are simul- taneously ready as sacrifices, the former precedes the latter in all respects. GEMARA: Whence is this deduced? Said Abaye [Numb, xxviii. 23]: " Besides the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a continual burnt-ofTering, shall ye prepare these." Now, as it reads already the burnt-offering of the morning, why was it necessary to state which is for a continual offering? To teach that what is more common precedes the less. And whence do we know that what is more sanctified precedes the less one? From what was taught by the disciples of R. Ismael: " Thou shallst sanctify him," means to every sanctification he shall begin first, he shall make the benediction first, and he shall be the first to take the best share. " The bullock of tJie anointed,'' etc. Whence is this deduced? From [Lev, iv. 21]: " And he shall burn him as he has burned the first bullock." To what purpose was the " first" neces- sary? To teach that he must make precede the bullock of the congregation in all respects. The rabbis taught: If the bullock of the anointed priest and