תלמוד על הוריות 3:1

³³¹A parallel text (שׁ) is in Šabbat 12:3 (13c l. 62 ff.) The text here is primary; there the story is told as an appendix to the argument of R. Immi which, however, responds not to the question asked about precedence but about Sabbath prohibitions as explained in Note 329. Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors³³²Greek βουλευταί. and one rural³³³Latin pagani., who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors 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 Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study³³⁴The text of B, “of Tiberias” has to be rejected. Not only is the text of L confirmed by the text in Šabbat, but also the remark that he “went up” refers to going from Tiberias below Sea level to Sepphoris high in the mountains but also the entire story is placed at Sepphoris and only there a public ruling was needed.: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest³³⁵Mishnah 3:9..” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for livelihood, and for clothing, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abun said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls³³⁶Prov.. 3:15., even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

³⁶⁹The following paragraph is a re-writing of one in Sanhedrin2:1 (Notes 31–38) and Horaiot3:6 (Notes 200–202). About rending the trim around the neck, see Notes 330 ff. For no deceased one he rends the trim except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the trim is a frivolous tear. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things. Rebbi Joḥanan heard that Rebbi Ḥanina was weak. He was going up to visit him. On the road he heard that he had died. He descended from his donkey, took out the good Sabbath garment, and tore it. As we have stated there³⁷⁰Mishnah Horaiot 3:6.: “The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rebbi Joḥanan said, really low. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! How about this? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely³⁷¹Meaning that it is a stringency for the High Priest that he is forbidden to sever the seam completely. The High Priest is forbidden to let his hair grow or tear his clothes (Lev. 21:10). R. Meïr interprets the verse to mean that in mourning he may not tear his garment in the way other people do The Mishnah is R. Meïr’s. It is obvious that one speaks here of the High Priest’s personal belonging, not his robes of office, which may not be torn (Ex. 28:32,29:23). The point is made that Lev. 21:10 does not use the frequently used verb קרע “to tear” but the infrequent פרם “to tear in little pieces”. This is interpreted in Sifra Emor Parashah 2(3) to mean that the High Priest is not totally forbidden to rend his garments, only he may not do what everybody does. If he rends it, it may only be at the bottom, where few people will notice, and it may not be deep. Horaiot 12b..

HALAKHAH: ⁴¹¹The entire Halakhah is also in Horaiot3:3 (Notes 132–188). The copy of the first paragraph in Horaiot is incomplete; the later paragraphs are also in Yoma1:1 (Notes 123–149). It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull⁴¹²The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹³Tosephta Horaiot 2:3.. What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed⁴¹⁴The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war⁴¹⁵The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹⁷Mishnah Horaiot 3:4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of an ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. But here⁴¹⁸In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹⁹Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of “the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead” does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,]⁴²⁰Unnecessary corrector’s addition. this refers to the king⁴²¹Since Cohen may simply mean “public servant” (2S. 8:18).. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king⁴²²Which is only the third in the Chapter., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat⁴²³As explained in Horaiot2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner’s sacrifice (or, since a male animal is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry). The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner’s sacrifice.. Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.