MISHNAH: 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 goat¹. 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 commoner².

footnotes: ¹ Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Mishnah 2. ² Again the moment of the sin determines the kind of sacrifice. Priestly offices follow the rule that “one rises in holiness; one does not descend;” the former Anointed Priest remains in his status. He cannot officiate as Anointed Priest since another one holds the office; neither can he officiate as common priest since he may not descend in rank. The same is true for an unanointed High Priest. But a politician who loses his rank is free to run for any other office; his sacrifice is a female goat or sheep like everybody else’s.

HALAKHAH: “An Anointed Priest who sinned,” etc. Halakhah 2:“An Anointed Priest who was removed from his anointed status,” etc. ³ 2:1, Notes 14 ff. The paragraph is missing in B, as in all similar cases it was added by later editors of the Babli from the Yerushalmi. Only the few added verses are indicated here. The additions are printed in a different typeface. In a few places, the text here is slightly shortened. Rebbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rebbi Mana said, it is written: For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal; if one could compare it, just as I am in My Greatness, so Aaron is in his greatness. Rebbi Abun said, it is written⁴. 21:8.: Holy shall he be for you; if one could compare it, I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rebbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: if an Anointed Priest sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. If you would say in a court of 23, his elevation would be his degradation. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him in a court of three [judges]. Does one return him? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, better if one did return him, he would kill them. Rebbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiţţim. Rebbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall; Rebbi 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 shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, I and you will go out to meet him. Rebbi Joḥanan sent to Rebbi 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 in that night, not only He but all His Court. It is not written in this context “when Power went” but when Powers went⁵. 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 Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, No my sons, because the reputation is not good, etc., you remove the Eternal’s people⁶. 2:24. This quote is the gist of the entire sermon, missing in Sanhedrin., one removes him.

footnotes: ³ A slightly enlarged version of a paragraph in Sanhedrin ⁴ Lev ⁵ 2S ⁶ 1S

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners¹⁷. Rebbi 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 said⁸ 4:22., if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; 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 garb⁹30:25). All High Priests up to the time of king Josiah were anointed with it. Since that time, the oil was no longer available; it cannot be reconstituted. The later High Priests were inducted into their office by investiture with the High Priest’s garments.. The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments¹⁰. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement¹¹ 16:3). and the tenth of an ephah¹² 6:12–16, of about 3.84 l of fine flour.. Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement¹³, commanded about the virgin¹⁴ 21:13. This applies only if the High Priest marries while High Priest. If he married a widow while a common priest, he still may be elevated to High Priest., and prohibited for a widow¹⁵. 21:14., and do not defile themselves for close relatives¹⁶. 21:11., and may not let their hair grow¹⁷. 21:10. or rend their garments¹⁸. 21:10. These are forbidden as mourning rites., and let the homicide return¹⁹ 35:25 (where anointing is mentioned), 32 (where anointing is not mentioned)..

footnotes: ¹ Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Mishnah 2. ⁷ For the purposes of this sacrifice. ⁸ Lev. ⁹ Making the anointing oil was commanded personally to Moses (Ex. ¹⁰ The rules about the High Priest’s purification sacrifice explained in Chapter 2 became obsolete with the destruction of the First Temple and could be restored to validity only if a dig on the Temple Mount would recover the flask containing the original oil. The High Priests of the Second Temple had the status of commoners in this respect. ¹¹ Which has to be acquired by the High Priest with his own money together with a goat (Lev. ¹² The personal daily offering of the High Priest, Lev. ¹³ If the acting High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated, a former High Priest can replace him without special dedication. No common priest can perform any of the prescribed acts of the Day of Atonement. ¹⁴ Lev. ¹⁵ Lev ¹⁶ Lev ¹⁷ Lev ¹⁸ Lev ¹⁹ Num.

HALAKHAH: “If they sinned before being appointed,” etc. The colleagues say that the reason of Rebbi Simeon is because greatness atones²⁰ 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma 22b). The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there.. Rebbi Yose said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²¹. What is the difference²² 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. He who said, because greatness atones; just as it atones for the certain [sin] so it atones for the doubt. He who said. because his sin and his knowledge are not equal; his sin and his knowledge are not equal²³. If they sinned before they were appointed and after they were appointed they breached, for him who said, because greatness atones, greatness atoned for the first, but he is liable for the second and the third²⁴. For him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²⁵. If they sinned regarding hearing a sound, or expression of the lips, or the impurity of the Temple and its sancta, for him who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal, here his sin and his knowledge are equal²⁶. For him who said, because greatness atones, even in this case greatness atones²⁷.

footnotes: ²⁰ As will become clear later (Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. ²¹ This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing. ²² Are there practical differences depending on which doctrine one chooses? Since only R. Simeon’s opinion is discussed, it seems that the Yerushalmi accepts his as practice, as far as these rules have practical applications. ²³ There is no practical difference between rulings based on the colleagues’ or R. Yose’s opinions. ²⁴ The first case occurred before he was appointed, the second while he was in office, the third after he was removed from office. According to the colleagues, the induction into exalted office cancels the previous sins; once he entered office no further benefits accrue; cf. Note 29. ²⁵ No detail is given since the answer is complicated; the problem is taken up again in Note 64. There is no sacrifice possible if the status of the sinner has changed between the date of the sin and the realization that it happened. The only problem is that of a sin committed in stage 1 which becomes known in stage 3; whether or not a sacrifice is possible depends on the difference between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in 1:2, cf. there Note 74; cf. also the following Note 61. ²⁶ A sacrifice of variable value is required in all three cases; for R. Simeon under the restrictions of Chapter 2, Note 84. ²⁷ The complications discussed in Chapter 2 regarding the variable sacrifice become irrelevant by the elevation of a person to exalted status.

Rebbi Mattania said: Greatness cannot atone (until his greatness becomes known to him) [unless his error became known to him.]²⁹ 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 oblivion he is not liable³⁰. 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 offering³¹). 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 doubt³². Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: As you take it, if he ate forbidden fat, it atoned. [If he ate permitted fat, it atoned.]³³ Rebbi Yose said, anything which convinced him to bring a suspended reparation offering, the knowledge of the doubt establishes his transgression³⁴. So we find a case where for the actual offense he is not liable but for a doubt he is liable³⁵.

footnotes: ²⁹ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets is from B. It seems that the latter is the correct one. Since it was established in the preceding paragraph that in the opinion of the colleagues it is the act of elevation which wipes off earlier guilt, only those transgressions which are known to the person being elevated are being atoned for. The argument is also acceptable to R. Yose since once the transgression became known to the person, it determines the sacrifice which he is obligated to bring. If then his status changes, he might be prevented from ever bringing this sacrifice. ³⁰ While the consumption of any forbidden food is sinful, the transgression is prosecutable, or if committed inadvertently requires a sacrifice, only if the amount consumed was at least the volume of an olive (except it one ate a complete being, such as an ant.) All transgressions committed during one period of oblivion are added together, on condition that their accumulation result in one and the same sacrifice. But if his appointment changes the nature of the sacrifice, the partial transgressions cannot be added. ³¹ Since the appointment does not change the nature of the required suspended reparation sacrifice (except that the Anointed Priest is not liable for possible infractions relating to the purity of the Temple and its sancta. ³² This now refers to anybody and is not subject to varying purification sacrifices. If he ate two different foods, for one it became known to him that it was forbidden, the other is only suspected of not being kosher. Then for the forbidden food he is liable to bring a purification sacrifice, for the suspected one a suspended reparation sacrifice. Bringing a suspended reparation sacrifice implies an obligation to bring a purification sacrifice if it should become clear that a sin had actually been committed. ³³ The text in brackets is from B; it makes for a smoother reading but one could argue that it is redundant.R. Jacob’s argument is that a second purification sacrifice (and possibly the suspended reparation sacrifice) should be unnecessary (and therefore impossible) since if the two kinds of food were both known to be not kosher and they were eaten in one period of oblivion, one purification sacrifice would be prescribed. If the second food turned out to be kosher, no sacrifice would be needed. ³⁴ The previous argument is rejected. The obligation of sacrifices is fixed at the moment the person realizes the sinfulness of his actions. Since at that moment, the status of the second food remained in doubt, it required a suspended reparation sacrifice. But a suspended reparation sacrifice carries with it the implicit obligation of a purification sacrifice in case the situation could be cleared up. ³⁵ In case of a certain violation, one sacrifice would have been due. Because of the doubt, two or three are due now. The previous statement is disproved.

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 oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]³⁶. 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 oblivion he is liable only for one, in two forgettings he is liable for two [sacrifices.³⁷]

footnotes: ³⁶ The moment of realization of the transgression determines the kind of sacrifice required. Since the Anointed and the king are forbidden to offer the sacrifice of a commoner and vice-versa, only one sacrifice is possible. ³⁷ Since a suspended reparation sacrifice is authorized for everybody, it can be offered both by a commoner and by an Anointed Priest or a king. But it was established earlier that elevation starts new obligations of sacrifices. Therefore, obligations of suspended reparation sacrifices before and after elevation cannot be combined.

One ate the volume of three olives but was of the opinion that he ate only two. {He selected a sacrifice following Rebbi Joḥanan.³⁸} [If he selected one sacrifice, this atones.³⁹ 71b, switches the attributions between RR. Johanan and Simeon ben Laqish. For R. Simeon ben Laqish, the dedication of the sacrifice to atone for two infractions requires a new sacrifice for the third. For R. Joḥanan, the one sacrifice automatically is valid for the third also.] For Rebbi Joḥanan said, if part of the sin was atoned for, all of the sin was atoned for. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if part of the sin was atoned for, not all of the sin was atoned for.

footnotes: ³⁸ Text of L. ³⁹ Text of B. The two texts have the same meaning; B’s is more easily understood. The Babli, Šabbat

One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him (in court) [as a certainty.⁴⁰ while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴¹2:1 (33d l. 10) Babli Keritut 18b, Ševuot19b. The Babli finds here a tannaitic controversy. It was stated that the awareness of a transgression determines the obligation of a purification sacrifice, but the obligation of a suspended reparation sacrifice may cover separate incidents. The question then arises what are the obligations if the doubts about a single suspended reparation sacrifice are resolved on different occasions? (In the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion is attributed to Rebbi, that of R. Johanan to Rebbi’s teachers R. Yose ben R. Jehudah and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.) In the example, the doubt is whether he ate permitted or prohibited fat.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴²2:1. Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status.. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering⁴³ 7:7. The verse appears in a different context, i. e., that the technicalities of purification and reparation sacrifices are identical [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 9(1)]. In Maimonides’s opinion, the quote here is an allusion, not a proof.. 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.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior ⁴¹ The problem discussed here has no direct connection with change of status; it applies as well to a commoner who progressively becomes aware of multiple transgressions of the same kind; Ševuot ⁴² The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot ⁴³ Lev.

The argument of Rebbi 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 have⁴⁴ 2:1, the doubt arises about impurity of the Sanctuary which is not subject to a suspended reparation offering. There is no sacrifice which could define future obligations.?

footnotes: ⁴⁴ R. Simeon ben Laqish is not inconsistent. Here, he holds that the moment which determines one’s obligation for a reparation offering also determines the conditions for a future purification offering. But in Ševuot

The argument of Rebbi 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? Rebbi Joḥanan said this only for the last realization which does not require any sacrifice⁴⁵2:1; its original place is here. In the case of three olives he holds that the supplementary in- formation about the third olive is irrelevant since the purification sacrifice for the first two also covers the third. In the case of the volume of five olives, the supplementary information that he ate forbidden fat triggers the obligation of a purification sacrifice which did not exist before; it is relevant..

footnotes: ⁴⁵ This paragraph also appears in Ševuot

Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yose said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷. Rebbi Zeˋira said, where neither itself nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁴⁸ 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

footnotes: ⁴⁶ In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.) ⁴⁷ It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah. ⁴⁸ He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Mishnah Temurah

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed (and in court) [as the certainty]⁴⁰ while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B. after he was removed⁴⁹. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is not liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is liable⁵⁰. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to free from liability, not rather to insist on liability⁵¹? 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 Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression, he must say⁵² that one is liable⁵³. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression, he must say that one is not liable⁵⁴. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither itself not its blood are usable, it dies immediately⁴⁸ 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

footnotes: ⁴⁰ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior ⁴⁹ One now applies the preceding discussion to the Mishnah, following R. Simeon who insists that the status of the person at the moment at which he receives the information determines his liability. ⁵⁰ In this interpretation, since according to R. Simeon ben Laqish the obligation of a suspended sacrifice implies that of the corresponding purification sacrifice, the prior obligation which was eliminated by the appointment is not re-instituted by removal from office. For R. Joḥanan the status of the suspended sacrifice is irrelevant for the purification offering. Since after removal the person is again under the rules of a commoner, his obligation is not changed. ⁵¹ Since the original statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to a case where he is more restrictive than R. Joḥanan, it is inadmissible to quote him in support of a more lenient position. In the case considered there is unanimity that for a transgression committed as a commoner, which could not have been atoned for while one was elevated, the original obligation of a purification sacrifice of a female sheep or goat is re-instituted. ⁵² The construction in L is rather awkward; that of B is more smooth, but this probably indicate that the text of B is babylonized. ⁵³ Since the obligation preceded the elevation it cannot be removed following R. Simeon. ⁵⁴ Since the obligation of a purification sacrifice became known when the person was prohibited from offering a commoner’s sacrifice, following R. Simeon the person is prevented from offering any sacrifice. ⁴⁶ In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.) ⁴⁷ It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah. ⁴⁸ He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Mishnah Temurah

⁵⁵ 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]⁵⁶ obligation of a sacrifice came in between, do they combine? Let us hear from the following⁵⁷ 71b.: Before him were three [olive sized pieces]⁵⁸. He ate the first but did not realize it; the second (and the third)⁵⁹ 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable for the first and the second but not liable for the third⁶⁰. Rebbi 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 third⁶¹. The colleagues compare it to four half-olives⁶² he was informed about the forbidden character of piece i–2 but not yet about piece i–1. (If one of these numbers be 0 or negative, the relative information is void.) Then one sacrifice covers pieces 1 and 2 which were eaten in ignorance. But since at the time he was eating piece 3 he already was informed about piece 1, the sacrifice for 1 and 2 cannot be applied to 3. Since he was informed about 2 but not 3 when he ate 4, the last two pieces can be atoned for by one sacrifice.. 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. (Rebbi 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.)⁶³ If he brought for the middle ones, he is not liable for the first and the fourth⁶⁴. Rebbi 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 separately⁶⁵.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ A similar problem is treated in the Babli, 11a. ⁵⁶ Text of B, necessary in the text. Since no full olive-sized piece of forbidden food was eaten while the person was in his privileged appointed status, the previous argument that the new obligation of sacrifices invalidates the old one does not apply. The question is raised whether the two unrelated episodes of a commoner’s obligation can be added. In the Babli, the question remains undecided in principle. ⁵⁷ Cf. Babli Šabbat ⁵⁸ Text of B. ⁵⁹ Text of L. It is preferable to delete it since if the second and third olives are eaten under similar circumstances, the remaining text of the statement becomes redundant. ⁶⁰ When he became obligated for a purification sacrifice for the first piece, he did not know of his obligation for the second. Following R. Simeon, the obligation for the first piece and the future one for the second are incompatible. But if the information about the second and the third reaches him after the third had been eaten, one sacrifice covers both of them. ⁶¹ He disputes R. Johanan’s interpretation of R. Simeon’s position. Since the first and second pieces were eaten in ignorance, even if the information reached the perpetrator piecemeal, one sacrifice still may cover both. The argument for using one and the same sacrifice for the second and third pieces is the same as that given by R. Joḥanan. ⁶² He ate pieces 1,2,3,4 in a situation when while eating piece i ⁶³ This text, missing in B, is an intrusion of the later text into the current discussion; it should be disregarded. ⁶⁴ The intelligent person will dedicate his sacrifice for pieces 2 and 3. Then 1 is a single half-olive which does not qualify for a sacrifice. The same holds true for 4. Since the information about 1 was available when 4 was consumed, 1 and 4 do not combine. ⁶⁵ The situation contemplated by R. Yose is parallel to that considered by the colleagues but this time each of the pieces has the full volume of an olive. Then each piece itself qualifies for a sacrifice. The second best solution of the colleagues now becomes the best for R. Yose; their best now is the second best.

Rebbi Isaac asked: Is it the same with the eating of half loaves⁶⁶ “part, share, portion” of food). The time needed to eat half a loaf serves as definition of the time needed for a minimal meal. For example, any person entering an infected house becomes impure (Lev. 14:46) but his garments also become a source of original impurity only if he stays there for a meal, i. e., the time needed to eat half a loaf (v. 47). Tosephta Negaˋim 7:10 (Mishnah Eruvin 8:2) defines the loaf in question as baked from wheat flour in the volume of a third of a qab. Halakhah Terumot 5:3 (Note 44) estimates a modius, 4 qab, as the volume of 96 eggs. This makes a פְּרַס a piece of bread baked from the volume of 4 eggs of wheat flour. The sources give no indication of a translation of this definition into terms of time. Snacks eaten at times separated by more that the time needed to eat a peras must be counted as separate meals. Therefore, eating forbidden food triggers the obligation of a purification sacrifice only if the volume of an entire olive was eaten in the time needed to eat a peras(Mishnah Keritut 3:3).? Rebbi Yose said, this question of Rebbi Isaac is nothing. (Is it written) [Does]⁶⁷ 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 anything⁶⁸? If one ate the volume of several olives during times allotted for several half-loaves in one oblivion, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]⁶⁹. The rabbis of Caesarea say, instead of comparing it to kinds of fat, why not compare it to [the laws of] Sabbath⁷⁰ 1:1 (2b line 32 ff.) where R. Yose’s (the Amora’s) remark here is put in the mouth of R. Yudan (the Amora) to explain the opinion of R. Yose (the Tanna) about violations of Sabbath prohibitions. It is forbidden to transport goods from one place to another on the Sabbath. “Transporting” means taking up the goods, moving them from one domain to another, and unloading. If any of the three actions be missing, no prosecutable sin was committed. In addition, for each kind of goods the Mishnah specifies minimal amounts. If less than the amount specified was transported while the person was oblivious of the Sabbath, no purification offering is required. On the other hand, if any number of transports were executed within one period of oblivion, only one sacrifice is needed. R. Yose the Tanna then specifies that repeated transports of less than a minimal amount add up to an atonable sin only if the different pieces were transported between the same domains [Šabbat 1:1 (2b line 22), Babli Šabbat 80a, Bava batra 55b, Keritut 17a.] This is compared to the rules specifying purification sacrifices for eating pieces of forbidden fat. The rabbis of Caesarea object that there is no proof that the rules of the Sabbath be identical to the rules for other biblical prohibitions, but the rules detailed for transporting are paralleled by rules for other kinds of activities on the Sabbath. Mishnah Šabbat 13:1 states that weaving is forbidden and the threshold for an action requiring a purification sacrifice is weaving two threads. For the majority, weaving two threads in one oblivion triggers the obligation of a sacrifice, for R. Yose only if the two rows were added to the same piece of cloth.? 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 oblivion, 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 together⁷¹? Rebbi Abun said, there it is about the obligation of a sacrifice; but here [a change]⁷² of sacrifice.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ פְּרַס is the technical term for half a loaf of bread. (The punctuation פְּרָסִים is the ms.’s. The term is derived either from Hebrew פרס “to break bread” or Latin pars ⁶⁷ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב. ⁶⁸ As explained in Note 56, no atonable sin was committed. ⁶⁹ As explained before, if an atonable sin was committed, any number of sins corresponding to the same definition committed during one spell of oblivion are atoned for by one sacrifice. ⁷⁰ This remark does not fit in here; it shows that the text was taken from Šabbat ⁷¹ Now one returns to the problem posed in the preceding paragraph, of the person who ate three half-olive sized pieces of forbidden fat while he was in different states for possible purification sacrifices. Is it possible to decide between R. Joḥanan on one side and R. Yose (the Amora) and the colleagues on the other? For the latter, it should make sense to combine the two pieces eaten while the person was a commoner. This is rejected, since the two states of commoner are separated by an interval in which the purification offering had to be different, everybody will agree that the three half sized pieces do not add up to one full sized piece. ⁷² Text of B, forgotten by the scribe of L.

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 atones²⁰ 13:1, that Saul was 1 year old when he became king; his sins were remitted and he was innocent like a one year old baby (Yoma 22b). The colleagues are Rav Hanania and Rav Oshia, two Babylonians of the third generation of Amoraim who lived in Galilee but never held office there., the office atoned for the first and he is liable for the second and the third⁷³. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, because his sin and his knowledge are not equal²¹, he is liable for the first and the second, but not liable for the third⁷⁴. He ate the size of an olive. If it is in doubt whether he ate before he was appointed or after he was appointed⁷⁵, or whether it was before he converted or after he converted⁷⁶, or whether it was before he had grown two pubic hairs or after he had grown two pubic hairs⁶⁷, he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice⁷⁸.

footnotes: ²⁰ As will become clear later (Note 29), it is not the high office which atones but the appointment to high office. This is the Babli’s interpretation of 1S. ⁷³ As explained at the start of the chapter, it is not the high office but the appointment to high office which atones; the occupant of a high office is responsible for his actions like everybody else. ²¹ This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli, 3a. Since the status of the individual at the moment of the sin determines the appropriate sacrifice, if later his status changes he is prevented from sacrificing. ⁷⁴ It is difficult to make sense of this statement. If the information became known in stage three, which seems to be the hypothesis, there can be no sacrifice for unresolved sins committed in stage 2. The only problem would be a sin committed in stage 1, for which a sacrifice in stage 3 was ruled out by R. Abun in the preceding paragraph. The author of this paragraph seems to disagree with R. Abun. ⁷⁵ In the first case, a purification sacrifice is needed but not in the second, both for the colleagues and R. Yose. ⁷⁶ The Gentile is not required to observe biblical commandments except the Seven Noahide commandments. In no case is a purification sacrifice possible for an unconverted Gentile. ⁶⁷ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. It seems that the scribe of L read וכ׳ instead of וכי and unthinkingly interpreted כ׳ as the common abbreviation of כְּתִיב. ⁷⁸ This means that a reparation sacrifice is required not only in case the criminality of the act is in question but even if the possibility of a purification sacrifice is in doubt.

If he ate a full olive sized piece⁸⁰ but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt⁸¹. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt⁸². 23:32). If it still was the day of Atonement, doctrine is that in the absence of a scapegoat the end of the day provides the Atonement [Yoma 8:8 45c l. 15; Ševuot 1:9 33c l. 3, lacunary Sanhedrin 10:1 Note 34; Tosefta Kippurim 4:17].. Rebbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood⁸³. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.⁸⁴ 4:2. The Mishnah deals with a case which is impossible in our computed calendar, where the Day of Atonement was either Friday or Sunday and somebody was doing some forbidden work during the twilight between the days. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, holds that in this case no suspended sacrifice is due since one may assume that part of the work was done on the day of Atonement; this part of an unintended sin then is eliminated, leaving an incomplete work for the Sabbath which needs no sacrifice (Note 60). This shows that the colleagues are correct in extending the power of the Day of Atonement.” 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”⁸⁵? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, eating permitted [food].

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Kosher food, which only is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. ⁸¹ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 19. ⁸² If the food was eaten in the twilight at the end of the Day of Atonement and the next day already had started, no sin was committed (Lev ⁸³ R. Mattaniah holds that the Day of Atonement only eliminates a suspended reparation sacrifice which certainly was due. But in the case where the doubt arises whether it was the Day of Atonement or not, there is no prior obligation and, therefore, it cannot be eliminated. ⁸⁴ Mishnah Keritut ⁸⁵ The questioner thinks that the food in question was forbidden fat. In that case, the Day of Atonement cannot eliminate the obligation of a suspended sacrifice for the following night. The answer is that in contrast to the cases considered earlier, one supposes that kosher food was eaten.

If he ate five times the volume of an olive; the doubt became known to him before he was appointed, and (in court)⁸⁶ after he was appointed. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish he is liable; in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not liable⁸⁷. Did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish state to insist on liability, not rather to free from liability⁸⁸? But it must be as follows: He ate five times the volume of an olive⁸⁹. The doubt became known to him after he was appointed; (in court)⁸⁶ after he was removed. Following the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was not totally atoned, he must say⁴²2:1. Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status. that he is not liable⁹⁰. Following the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if the sin was partially atoned for it was totally atoned, he must say that one is liable⁹⁴. Everybody agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁴⁶. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁴⁷. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁴⁸ 2:2) since it can neither be redeemed, nor used, nor allowed to produce young which would perpetuate its impossible situation..

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Cf. Note 30. It seems that one should read “its certainty”. ⁸⁷ Since R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that his status at the moment of the first notification determines his obligation for sacrifices (Note 43), he became obligated for a purification offering. If now he is not a commoner, he is obligated for an exalted person’s purification offering. For R. Johanan who disagrees (Note 44), the knowledge of the doubt does not determine the obligation when he is informed of the certainty. Following R. Simeon, action and information referred to different status; no sacrifice is possible. ⁸⁸ This is the reverse of the question asked in Note 41; in any case the argument is inconclusive since the exact position of R. Simeon ben Laqish is unknown. ⁸⁹ Before he was appointed. ⁸⁶ Cf. Note 30. It seems that one should read “its certainty”. ⁴² The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot ⁹⁰ One does not argue directly from R. Simeon ben Laqiah’s statement but from his argument, based on the principle stated, in the case of three pieces when he realized only that he had eaten two (Note 19). R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that the moment of first information determines his status for sacrifices. Since he was informed of a transgression as a commoner when he was exalted and therefore prevented of bringing a sacrifice, had he then been informed of the certainty, the additional information reaching him after he reverted to commoner status cannot change the situation. R. Johanan, who in the situation of Note 29 extends the validity of the sacrifice, will allow the information reaching him as a commoner to determine the sacrifice due for an act committed as a commoner. ⁹⁴ While he ate the five pieces, he was oblivious either of the fact that these were forbidden fat or of the law that certain kinds of fat are forbidden. Then he was informed of the forbidden character of these pieces one by one and immediately after each information dedicated an animal but did not sacrifice yet. ⁴⁶ In the case of three volumes of olive size R. Johanan asserts that if a sacrifice was brought for the first two before the person was informed of the third, no additional sacrifice is needed. But if the animal was only dedicated to atone for two and before it was slaughtered its owner was informed of the third, it is asserted that the dedication becomes invalid and a new animal is needed even according to R. Johanan. (Therefore, a careful person will formally dedicate his animal at the last possible moment, just before entering the Temple precinct. An intention to use the animal, short of formal dedication, is no obstacle to using it for another purpose.) ⁴⁷ It should be left to graze until it develops a bodily defect or becomes too old to serve as sacrifice, then be sold and its proceeds used to buy the new purification sacrifice.While both sources here read “R. Yose”, the only acceptable reading is that of L in the next paragraph, “R. Yasa”, of the generation of R. Zeˋira’s teachers. R. Yose was the student of R. Zeˋira’s student R. Jeremiah. ⁴⁸ He objects that the animal now has the status of a purification sacrifice whose owner’s sin was atoned for by another animal, which has to be left to die (Mishnah Temurah

Rebbi Joḥanan agrees that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside. What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if neither it nor its blood are usable it dies immediately⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁹¹ It seems that this paragraph is superfluous text. The scribe copied the preceding text with the wrong start and then copied again the (almost) correct text in the next paragraph.

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁹²? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁹³. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive⁹⁴; 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings⁹⁵ 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings.. Rebbi 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 aside⁹⁶. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me⁹⁷ 4:2.: “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 one⁹⁸.” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped⁹⁹ sins. The requirement of oblivion is only mentioned for the suspended reparation sacrifice (Lev. 5:17). The Mishnah should have mentioned suspended sacrifices first. Since purification sacrifices were mentioned first, the Mishnah cannot be read as referring to the effect of information after the fact, only to information reaching the person between two intrinsically forbidden acts.! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so¹⁰⁰ in between, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of doubt in between.”.

footnotes: ⁹² R. Yose ben R. Abun will show that the often repeated statement that “everybody agrees” is false; R. Johanan disagrees; the explanation given in Note 36 has to be amended. ⁹³ These two sentences are copied from the previous statement; they are copied to point out that R. Zeˋira’s statement is disregarded since it would lead to a complication in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement. ⁹⁴ While he ate the five pieces, he was oblivious either of the fact that these were forbidden fat or of the law that certain kinds of fat are forbidden. Then he was informed of the forbidden character of these pieces one by one and immediately after each information dedicated an animal but did not sacrifice yet. ⁹⁵ The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Mishnah Parah ⁹⁶ Since for him dedications cannot be extended, only the last animal can legitimately be sacrificed. The others have to be sent to graze. ⁹⁷ Mishnah Keritut ⁹⁸ Since temporary oblivion is a prerequisite for the possibility of a purification sacrifice, sins committed when there was an interval of awareness between them cannot be atoned for by one and the same sacrifice. This rule is extended to suspended sacrifices. Since in the case in question the selection of new sacrifices was in response to information, one should read the Mishnah as forbidding the extension of the meaning of dedications. ⁹⁹ The formulation of the Mishnah and the explanation given in the preceding Note are all wrong. The verses introducing purification sacrifices emphasize that these atone only for unintentional ¹⁰⁰ Rav Hisda’s objection is well taken. The formulation of the Mishnah is elliptic. One should read it as follows: “Just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of certainty

[It is written]¹⁰¹: If the Prince sin.¹⁰². 4:22. The sermon is mentioned in the Babli 10, Tosephta Bava qamma 7:5, Sifra Hova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah 5(1). It is standard homiletics to derive the conjunction אֲשֶׁר from the root אשר “to be fortunate.” Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai said, fortunate [is the generation]¹⁰¹ whose Prince brings a purification sacrifice. He brings it for his inadvertent sin, not so much more for his intentional one¹⁰³? If its Prince brings, not so much more the commoner?

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰² Lev ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰³ There is no formal atonement for intentional sin. If the Prince is aware of his unintentional missteps, he will be careful to avoid intentional ones.

“The Prince.” I could think a tribal chieftain like Naḥshon; the verse says, “if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God⁸ 4:22.; and further it says, that he may learn to fear the Eternal, his God¹⁰⁴. 17:19. This is justification for the short statement in the Mishnah. Babli 11a/b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parašah5(1).. “His God, [his God]” for an equal cut. Since “his God” mentioned there refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹ his God, so also “his God” mentioned here refers to a Prince over whom there is only [the Eternal]¹⁰¹ his God⁹⁵ 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings..

footnotes: ⁸ Lev. ¹⁰⁴ Deut ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ⁹⁵ The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Mishnah Parah

[It is written:]¹⁰¹ There are just people¹⁰⁶. 8:14. Since the parallel in the Babli, 10b, also has only a short quote, it seems that the extensive quote of the verse in B is secondary. Eccl. rabbati 8(15), wording of B. *[to whom happens what should happen to evildoers and there are evildoers to whom happens what should happen to just people.]*¹⁰¹ 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 people¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰⁶ Eccl ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰⁷ This is a continuation of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai’s homily about אשר, אשרי. The Just who are poor and unhappy in this world have already been punished for their sins and will go to the World to Come for unlimited eternal bliss. (The Babli somewhat disagrees.) The evildoers who have received the reward of their good deeds in this world will go to the World to Come for unmitigated pain.

A king of Israel and a king of Jehudah are both equal, neither of them is greater than the other. What is the reason? *The king of Israel and [Josaphat]*¹⁰¹ *the king of Jehudah [were sitting]*¹⁰¹ in the threshing floor¹⁰⁸. 22:10.. As in a threshing floor¹⁰⁹ 4:9) so that none had any advantage over the other. Babli Ḥulin 5a (Lev. rabba 11(8); Eccl. rabbati 1(30)).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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 Israel¹¹⁰. 15:12. Jeroboam became king with prophetic sanction; Baˋsha at least had prophetic acknowledgment; Omri was appointed by popular acclaim, and Jehu by prophetic anointment. All permanent kings of Israel from Jeroboam I to Jeroboam II’s son had religious sanction. After that the kings of Israel with only one exception murdered their precedessors.. After that they were taking it by robbery.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰¹ From B, missing in L. ¹⁰⁸ 1K ¹⁰⁹ They sat together in a circle (Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹¹⁰ 2K

“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 commoner¹¹¹ 1:1 (56b l. 49). A king who is not in control of his government does not have the status of king [Cf Sanhedrin 2:4 (Note 108)]..

footnotes: ¹¹¹ The same statement also is found in Roš Haššanah

¹¹² 8:3, Notes 69–92 (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 214), and, what seems to be the original source, Šeqalim 6:1, 49c l. 52 ff., Babli editio princeps 9d l. 21. Only the biblical quotes and major deviations from the Sotah text are noted here. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah bar Ilai says: The anointing oil made by Moses on the Mountain¹¹³ and Šeqalim: “in the desert.” The place is not mentioned in B. 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 hin¹¹⁴. 30:24.. It would not have been enough to rub the wooden planks with it; so much 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 it¹¹⁵. 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 generations¹¹⁶. 30:31..

footnotes: ¹¹² This text is part of a longer text found in Soṭah ¹¹³ In Sotah ¹¹⁴ Ex ¹¹⁵ 1S ¹¹⁶ Ex

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 Ṣadoq the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel¹¹⁷. 1:33–34.. One anoints kings only because of disputes. Why was Solomon anointed? Because of the dispute of Adoniahu, Joash because of Athaliah, Jehu because of Joram. Is it not written, do anoint him, for this one is it, this one needs anointing, but the kings of Israel do not need anointing? ¹¹⁸ But did not Josiah hide it? That means that they anointed with balsamum. Joaḥaz because of his brother Joakin 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. Rebbi Jehudah Antordiya said, because of the scepter shall not be removed from Jehudah¹¹⁹. 49:10.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, because of he shall have many days of his kingdom, he and his sons in the midst of Israel¹²⁰. 17:20.. What is written after that? The levitic Cohanim should not¹²¹. 18:1..

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ 1K ¹¹⁸ In all other sources, this follows the quote about the sons of Josiah. If Josiah had buried the holy oil together with the ark, how could his son have been anointed? ¹¹⁹ Gen ¹²⁰ Deut ¹²¹ Deut

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan is Joaḥaz. But is it not written: The first born Joḥanan¹²². 3:15., the first in kingdom. ¹²³The third Sedekiah, the fourth Shallum? Sedekiah, because he accepted the judgment on himself, Shallum, because in his days the dynasty of David was completed. ¹²⁴ text of the Babli editio princeps the statement is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish. His name was neither Shallum nor Sedekiah but Mattaniah. That is what is written: The king of Babylon made his uncle Mattaniah king in his stead¹²⁵. 24:17. etc.

footnotes: ¹²² 1Chr ¹²³ There the introduction is missing, that R. Joḥanan identified Sedekiah and Shallum as one and the same person. In the Babli 11b this and the following are a tannaitic statement. ¹²⁴ In the Šeqalim ¹²⁵ 2K

¹²⁶ 1:12).“The anointed with the anointing oil,” in the first Temple. “The one clothed in multiple garb,” in the later Temple. It follows what Rebbi Ina¹²⁷ 21b) and the Horaiot text in the Babli, as well as the parallels in Makkot 2:7 (explained in Notes 125–130), Taˋaniot 2:1 (65a l. 60): R. Samuel bar Ainia. Since the latter name appears as that of a student of R. Aḥa several times in different Tractates but “R. Ina” only here, the reading of B is preferable. said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In five things was the later Temple deficient compared with the first. What is the reason? Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc. I should be honored is missing a ¹²⁸. 1:8. אכבד is the Ketib, אכבדה the Qere. In the Alexandrian system of numeration by letters, ה׳ is 5.ה. These are the five things in which the later Temple was deficient compared with the first. And these are it: The fire¹²⁹ 7:1), but not that of the second Temple., the ark, Urim and Tummim¹³⁰, the (holy) oil [of anointing and the holy spirit.]¹³¹

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Here starts the discussion of the last sentence of the Mishnah, which continues with discussion of Mishnah 4 (= Mishnah Megillah ¹²⁷ In the Babli (Yoma ¹²⁸ Hag ¹²⁹ The fire on the outer altar in the first Temple was of divine origin (2Chr. ¹³⁰ The oracle whose nature was unknown in later times. ¹³¹ Text of B; a necessary addition since the text of L mentions only 4 items. The list in the Babli is slightly different. The holy spirit is that of prophecy.

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. What is Rebbi 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. Rebbi 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.¹³³ 5:6 is from Megillah 1:12. The secondary character of the text here is shown by the thorough corruption of the present paragraph compared to the parallel text in Megillah and partially Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra 2) Paršeta 2(6). One might conjecture that the editor of B neither did want to rearrange the text nor print it in disorder. The text of Megillah is readily understandable; it also explains the mutilated text here. The additional text is given in a different typeface. תַּנִּי. כֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פָר. אֵין הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָּר. וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר. הַמְרוּבָּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פָר. מַה טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מָשִׁים. וּמַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנָן. מָשִׁים. יָכוֹל זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כּהֵן. אי כהן יָכוֹל אַף מַרוּבָּה בגָדִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ. אוֹ יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מַרְבֶּה אַף מְשוּחַ מִלְחָמָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין עַל גַבָּיו מָשִׁיחַ, מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטתּוֹן דְרַבָּנָן, הָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ וְהָכָא כְתִיב מָשִׁיחַ, הָכָא אִינוּן אֶמְרִין. לְרַבּוֹת מְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. וְהָכָא אִינוּן אָמְרִין. לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים, אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא. כָּל־מִדְרַשׁ וּמִדְרַשׁ בְּעִנְיָנוֹ. תַּמָּן כָּל־הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. לְאֵי־זֶה דָבָר נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה בְגָדִים. בְּרָם הָכָא אֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה אֲמוּרָה בְאַהֲרן. אִילוּ נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שְׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא טָעִיר. הַוֵי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. או אִלוּ נֶאֱמַר כֹּהֵן וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר מָשִׁיחַ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. זֶה הַמֶּלֶךְ. אִין תּאמַר, כְּבָר קָדְמָה פָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ. הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. עַל הֶעֶלֶם דָּבָר מֵבִיא פָר וְעַל שִׁנְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. הַנִי צוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר מָשִׁיחַ וְצוֹרֶךְ הוּא שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּהֵן. It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meir, for Rebbi Mei"r said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull¹³⁴. What is Rebbi Meir's reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁵. 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, anointed¹³⁶. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war¹³⁷. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here¹³⁸ is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁹. But here¹⁴⁰ 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 garb¹⁴¹. 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 goat¹⁴². Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said, this refers to the king¹⁴³. If you would say already this¹⁴⁴ precedes the paragraph about the king¹⁴⁵, I would have said 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.

footnotes: ¹³³ The text and the following paragraphs up to the quote from Idiut ¹³⁴ The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others. ¹³⁵ Tosephta 2:3. ¹³⁶ The 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. ¹³⁷ The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Sotah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21: 10-15 (Tosephta 2:1). ¹³⁸ Lev. 6: 15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. ¹³⁹ Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Saw Pereq 5(1)]. ¹⁴⁰ In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. ¹⁴¹ Aaron 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. ¹⁴² As explained in Chapter 2:3, 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 is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry.) The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner's sacrifice. ¹⁴³ Since Cohen may simply mean "public servant" (2S. 8: 18). ¹⁴⁴ The unintelligible בפר in the text here is a plausible misreading for כבר. ¹⁴⁵ Which is only the third In the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Note 131.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and offered his tenth of an ephah it is valid¹⁴⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ Which is only the third in the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Note 131.

¹⁴⁶ 1:1 (38c l. 72 ff.).“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.¹⁴⁷ 1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses¹⁴⁸ “because of”, a scribal error. “By Moses” was a preferred expression of R. Ḥaggai’s.! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him¹⁴⁹. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Saw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry¹⁵⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ From here on there is a parallel in Yoma ¹⁴⁷ Mishnah Yoma ¹⁴⁸ In Yoma ¹⁴⁹ Lev ¹⁵⁰ He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up.

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 priest¹⁵¹ 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Yoma 3:8 41a l. 10, Megillah 1:12 72a l. 47, Ševuot 1:8, 33b l.13). Since the service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if performed by the High Priest, the substitute becomes a temporary High Priest. He cannot act as a High Priest if the actual High Priest’s temporary disability is removed and he is permanently barred from acting as a common priest. As the Babli points out, if the High Priest dies, the substitute automatically becomes his successor.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is (invalid) [valid]¹⁵² and Yoma and the Babli (Yoma 13a). The text of L cannot be correct since it is held in general that a doubt about the legitimacy of officiating in the Temple does not invalidate the offering (Terumot 8:1, Note 26).. Whose officiating? ¹⁵³ and Yoma, but also in abbreviated form in the Babli, Yoma 12b where, however, the ruling is not the king’s (necessarily of the Herodian dynasty) but “the rabbis’.” There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Yerushalmi version. Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris¹⁵⁴ that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement¹⁵⁵ Mishnah 1:7) to avoid the danger of him having an involuntary emission. If he has one anyhow, he is disqualified for the entire day even if he immediately purifies himself in a miqweh since the disqualification by temporary impurity is not removed by the removal of the impurity until the following sundown (Lev. 22:7; cf. Maˋaser Šeni 3:2, Notes 21–22.); Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. 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?¹⁵⁶ 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/24 Note 19/II. Josephus transscribes קִמְחִית בֶּן as τοῦ Kαμύδου.” 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.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ As the Babli explains (Yoma ¹⁵² The text in parentheses is that of L, the one in brackets that of B as well as the parallels in Megillah ¹⁵³ The case is told not only in the two parallels in Megillah ¹⁵⁴ This translation follows B and the parallels. The text of L, “in Sepphoris”, is impossible. ¹⁵⁵ The High Priest is taken to live in the Temple, and therefore deprived of sexual activity, for seven days preceding the Day of Atonement. In the night of the Day of Atonement he is deprived of sleep (Yoma ¹⁵⁶ In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Babli, Yoma

The remainder of the text (to line three of the next paragraph) is missing in B without indication of a lacuna. ¹⁵⁶ 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/2⁴ Note 19/II. Josephus transscribes קִמְחִית בֶּן as τοῦ Kαμύδου. It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with the ¹⁵⁷. The text of B, “with the Arab (Nabatean) king” is also the text of Megillah. In the Babli, “with an Arab on the Day of Atonement”. (For some reason, the Russian censor of the Wilna Babli changed “Arab” into “a nobleman”.) The confusion comes from the similarity if ערב “evening” and ערבי “Arab.” The explicit reference to sundown should argue for the version of L. If the Arab was not converted to Judaism, the High Priest would have had to leave the holy precinct on the Day of Atonement, a most unlikely happening before he had finished all his duties. The version of the text presupposes that the king had immersed himself in a miqweh so he could enter the restricted area on the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, (Mishnah Hagigah 2:7) “The garments of the vulgar are severely impure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are severely impure for those eating heave; the garments of those eating heave are severely impure for those sacrificing.” The severe impurity of מִדְרָס referred to here is the impurity of seats or beds used by a sufferer from gonorrhea or a menstruating woman, which makes anyone touching it impure and requires immersion in water and waiting until sundown. Since the king could not sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, he could not have immersed himself with the intention which would make him co-pure with the High Priest. Since the incident happened at sundown, the High Priest was automatically disqualified for the next 24 hours. While a living Gentile is not under the rules of biblical impurity, rabbinically every Gentile is impure and this impurity cannot be removed by immersion in water (Babli Avodah zarah 36b). 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 stead. On that day their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests¹⁵⁸. 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 undershirt¹⁵⁹. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour¹ “flour lady”.. They recited about her the verse¹⁶⁰. 45:14.: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments¹⁶¹, the argument means that the reward of a woman who behaves with dignity in her home is that her son will be High Priest whose garment is adorned with golden settings for precious stones. (Cf. Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 6, Bemidbar 3.).

footnotes: ¹⁵⁶ In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Babli, Yoma ¹⁵⁷ The text is not clear here. The text of L is also found in the parallel in Yoma ¹⁵⁸ Under the Herodian kings, when the High Priesthood was conferred and removed at the whim of the king. ¹⁵⁹ It is indecent for a married woman to be seen in public with uncovered hair. She was clothed at home as she was for the street and never undressed except in the dark. The Babli notes that many women follow this custom. ¹ A pun on the name of Qimhit ¹⁶⁰ Ps ¹⁶¹ According to Rashi’s commentary in Yoma

I could think that the one anointed for war¹³⁷. 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). should (not)¹⁶² bring his tenth of an ephah¹³⁹ as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. The verse says¹³⁸. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will stand in his stead brings a tenth of an ephah. But one whose sons will not stand in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where the anointed’s for war son will not stand in his stead? The verse says¹⁶³. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma 72b/73a., seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. But one who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, his son will not stand in his stead. From where that he can be appointed as High Priest¹⁶⁴? [As is written,] ¹⁶⁵. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them;in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle¹⁶⁶ 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁷, he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri¹⁶⁸. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea¹⁶⁹. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is meant here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123., he did not protest.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ The one mentioned in Deut ¹⁶² Text of L, missing in the two parallels and contradicted by the following text. ¹³⁹ Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah ¹³⁸ Lev ¹⁶³ Ex ¹⁶⁴ Since the Anointed for War is under the restrictions valid for the High Priest one has to ascertain that his office be subordinate, not coordinate, to the High Priesthood and that an appointment to High Priesthood does not violate the rule that one may not reduce the holiness of one’s position (Note 151). ¹⁶⁵ 1Chr ¹⁶⁶ Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot ¹⁶⁷ R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son. ¹⁶⁸ Num ¹⁶⁹ Jud

¹⁷⁰ (1:1 38b l. 26) and Megillah (2:12 71a l. 75), an explanation must be based on that text. The paragraph discusses the rules for the priest Anointed for War. It starts with an assertion that the Anointed for War officiates in the Temple in the High Priest’s garb while later it is asserted without dissent that he he barred from any service in the Sanctuary. The entire topic is a reconstruction of the environment in which one has to place David’s inquiries to God as recorded in the books of Samuel. A consistent whole is found in the Yoma/Megillah text. In the following, standard font is used for the Yoma text; where the Megillah text deviates, it is given in different typeface. מְנַיִין שֶׁהָיָה (שֶׁהוּא) נִשְׁאַל בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. ר׳ בָּא רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָי֖ו אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. אֶלָּא לִגְדוּלָּה שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. וּמְנַיִין (מְנַיִין) שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד בִּשְׁמוֹנָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה ר׳ אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּבִגְדֵ֤י הַקּוֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן יִהְי֥וּ לְבָנָ֖יו. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר אַֽחֲרָ֑יו. אֶלָּא לִקְדוּשָּׁה (לִגְדּוּלָּה) שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹנָה. עִמְּךָ הָיִיתִי. לֹא אָמַר עוֹבֵד אֶלָּא נִשְׁאַל. וּבַמֶּה (בַּמֶּה הוּא) נִשְׁאַל. אַייתֵי רַב הוֹשַׁעִיָה מַתְנִיתָא דְבַר קַפָּרָא מִן דְּרוֹמָא (דְּרוֹמָה) וְתַנָּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא בִשְׁמוֹנָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא בְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט. And from where that he was asked in eight¹⁷¹ 20: 1-9, the other to ask the Urim and Tummim oracle on behalf of the army commander. Since this oracle is mentioned only in connection with the High Priest's garments (Ex. 28:30) it is obvious that the Anointed for War must wear one of these garments for the oracle. But since all eight garments of the High Priest form an indivisible unit, he must wear all of them.? Rebbi Abba Rebbi Hiyya in the name of Rebbi Johanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead¹⁶³. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma 72b/73a.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him¹⁷² 29:30 continues: To be anointed in them and inducted into office. Since the one Anointed for War is anointed, he seems to quality.. And from where that he officiated in eight¹⁷³? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Johanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For holiness after him. In what was he asked¹⁷⁴? Rebbi Jonah said to him¹⁷⁵ 73a, the students of R. Johanan already point out that R. Johanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating., I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: He officiates neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest. And from where that he officiated in eight? Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead¹⁶³. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma 72b/73a.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. And from where that he was asked in eight? Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For holiness after him. In what was he asked? They brought it, רבבהו, 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. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four¹⁷⁶ 73a) and bases the rule strictly on that principle.. Why did they say that he did not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a simple priest who sometimes officiated in eight like a High Priest¹⁷⁷. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the 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 trumpets¹⁷⁸. 10:8., blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons¹⁷⁹ 17a. 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! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly¹⁸⁰ 10:3) is extended to use trumpets to introduce the public Torah reading in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 31:10–13).; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices¹⁸¹. 10:10; cf. Sanhedrin 3:3 Note 155.. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who heard but I could not explain. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life¹⁸². 75 (a better text Yalqut 725)..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ The text here up to the quote from Bar Qappara’s Mishnah is corrupt, contradictory in itself and mostly missing in B. Since it is a careless copy of the text in Yoma ¹⁷¹ The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in Deut. ¹⁶³ Ex ¹⁷² Ex. ¹⁷³ This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest's garb, "one increases in sanctity but does not decrease" (cf. Note 151). Otherwise one will have to disquality the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary. ¹⁷⁴ If R. Jeremiah, in opposition to R. Abba bar Hiyya, speaks about officiating, what is his opinion about inquiring from the Urim and Tummim? ¹⁷⁵ The name of R. Jonah's interlocutor is not given. It must be another student of R. Jeremiah (R. Yose?) since he points out that the words of his teacher were incorrectly transmitted and that R. Jeremiah's statement was identical with that of R. Abba bar Hiyya, the companion of R. Jeremiah's teacher R. Ze' ira. In the Babli, Yoma ¹⁶³ Ex ¹⁷⁶ He holds that as a matter of principle, the Anointed for War could use the eight garments of the High Priest strictly for his duties outside the sanctuary and still be a common priest inside without violating the principle of Note 151. The Babli disagrees (Yoma ¹⁷⁷ In contrast to the Babli, this would be strictly a rabbinic rule, not based on biblical principles, and therefore not a historical reconstruction by a new rule for the days of the Messiah. ¹⁷⁸ Num ¹⁷⁹ His oath formula, cursing himself if his statement should be found false. Babli Šabbat ¹⁸⁰ The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Num. ¹⁸¹ Num ¹⁸² A similar text in Sifry Num

The priest shall atone who was anointed¹⁸³. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified.. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where [to include another priest? The verse says, who was anointed;]¹⁸⁴ (ו) and Megillah (מ) (Note 170). The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively. not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed¹⁸⁵? The verse says, the priest shall atone¹⁸⁶. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth¹⁸⁷ 12b s,v. כהן).. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court for Israel.¹⁸⁸ 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable. Here end the parallels in Yoma and Megillah.”

footnotes: ¹⁸³ Lev ¹⁸⁴ From B and the parallels in Yoma ¹⁸⁵ In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oils was available, simple investiture ws enough. ¹⁸⁶ Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office. ¹⁸⁷ It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot Yoma ¹⁸⁸ Mishnah Idiut

“Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement,” etc.]¹⁸⁹ ¹⁹⁰ 2(7), on Lev. 21:13. Since the High Priest was mentioned in the preceding verses, the pronoun is unnecessary by the rules of grammar. It is added for emphasis; only the High Priest is restricted to marrying a virgin.He, not the king. He, not the chieftain¹⁹¹. He, to include the priest Anointed for War¹⁹². 21:10 to wearing the High Priest’s garments and the Anointed for War is required to wear these when asking the oracle, he is bound by all rules enumerated in vv. 10–15.. A woman in her virginity he shall marry; this excludes an adult whose hymen has atrophied. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon qualify the adult¹⁹³. 21:14. The parallels in the Babli, Yebamot 59a, Ketubot 97b, identify the first opinion as R. Meïr’s. It is agreed that if a girl is fully grown, the breaking of her hymen may not be noticed by the man.. ¹⁹⁴ 8:2, Notes 29–31, with the text of L badly corrupted. Since in the characterization of the sacrifice, the text of L is certainly corrupt, the second alternative has much to commend itself. In the text itself, the crucial point is whether to read אחר as אַחֵר “another” or אַחַר “after”. Since the text of L, but not that of B, refers to the High Priest, in the absence of a clear solution both texts are presented and explained. In the text of L one refers to the statement in the Mishnah that an acting High Priest and a deposed one are equal in all but the service of the Day of Atonement. The question is whether the acting High Priest may take the required fist full of incense and the deposed one then may bring the incense to the inner altar and burn it there; or the acting High Priest receive the blood of his sacrifices and the deposed one sprinkle of the blood on the walls of the altar. The question is not asked anywhere else and the positive answer is difficult to accept. Therefore, it is better to accept the text of B, even though it does not refer to the High Priest, as necessary introduction to the following paragraph which does. That text reads: Rebbi Isaac asked, does this apply to the remaining actions? He took the fist full and afterwards burned it; he received and afterwards threw it, he burned and afterwards sprinkled? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a robbed purification sacrifice which was not publicly known. This implies that if he took the fistful afterwards he burns it, if he received [the blood] afterwards he throws [it on the walls of the altar], he burned [the red cow] he afterwards sprinkles [water with its ashes to purify others]. As explained in Terumot, the question is asked about a Cohen who is informed that he is disbarred from the priesthood because of his birth from a woman forbidden to priests when he had completed one sacral action which by necessity must be followed by a different one. The answer is that the desecrated son of a Cohen who innocently started officiating may officiate to the end even though in the future he will be barred from officiating. Rebbi 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? Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: They made it like a (great) [robbed]¹⁹⁵ 5:5, as explained in Terumot. The text of L is in parentheses, the correct text in brackets is from B. The point of the argument is missing here in both texts, that the purification offering is acceptable (i., e., that the Temple authorities are prohibited from inquiring into the way the offerer acquired his animal.) 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. ¹⁹⁶ 8:2, Notes 32–33,40. If the High Priest after his elevation was found to be desecrated by his birth and thereby is removed, is this considered to be his death as far as the Sanctuary is concerned and releases any homicide sentenced during his tenure of office from the city of refuge or is his tenure as High Priest erased from the annals of the Sanctuary (Makkot 2:10–11)? No answer is given here; the first eventuality is chosen in Terumot.Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: Rebbi 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]¹⁹⁷ 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?

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ The beginning of the discussion of Mishnah 5 is noted only in B. ¹⁹⁰ Sifra Emor Parašah ¹⁹¹ Since the king was mentioned separately, נָשִׂיא here cannot be identified as the king; it must be a tribal chieftain. ¹⁹² Since the rules of the High Priest were tied in Lev ¹⁹³ Lev ¹⁹⁴ The interpretation of this paragraph depends on whether one considers the texts of L and B as two different texts or that the correct text is that of B, except for the name tradition identical with Terumot ¹⁹⁵ The reference is to Mishnah Gittin ¹⁹⁶ Terumot ¹⁹⁷ Text of B.

MISHNAH: The High Priest rends his garment below, the common priest above¹⁹⁸. 21:2–3). The High Priest is forbidden any mourning rites, including rending his garment (Mishnah 5). One allows him to make a tear at the bottom of his robe where nobody will notice it.. The High Priest sacrifices while in deep mourning but does not eat; the common priest neither sacrifices nor eats¹⁹⁹. 21:12) he must be permitted to officiate. But eating sancta while in deep mourning is forbidden to everybody (Deut. 26:14), including the High Priest (Lev. 10:19–20). The common priest is required to defile himself for the burial of a close relative (Lev. 21:1–2); automatically he is excluded from the Sanctuary and all its service..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Rending one’s garment is a required mourning rite for a close relative (as defined in Lev ¹⁹⁹ “Deep mourning” is the time between the death of a close relative and his burial (on the same day or the following night). Since the High Priest is forbidden to leave the Sanctuary (Lev

HALAKHAH: ²⁰⁰ 3:1, Notes 33–56. 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 Joḥanan was going up to visit Rebbi Ḥanina; on the road he heard that he had died. He sent, brought his good Sabbath garment, and tore it. Rebbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rebbi Jehudah in two things, but Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rebbi Jehudah. If following Rebbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! This refers only to his father or mother, following Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: One tears the seam for nobody who died except for father and mother, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the seam is a frivolous tear. How is that? It is said²⁰² for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.

footnotes: ²⁰⁰ The entire Halakhah is from Sanhedrin ²⁰² This is a simple copyist’s error for חוֹמֶר “a stringency”.

“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference], between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon there is one [difference]. Between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Jehudah is entering. Rebbi Jacob ben Dositheos: interruption is between them. Rebbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he does not enter. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he (leaves); if he was outside, he does not enter. Rebbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rebbi Simeon: “The Sanctuary he shall not leave, he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. (But they enter and he leaves). If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi 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.”

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written⁵¹: the fishermen are in deep sorrow,mourning are all who throw a fish-hook into the Nile? Rebbi 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 word of Rebbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rebbi, 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 Rebbi 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 Rebbi he is forbidden up to three days. There came Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rebbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rebbi 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. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Huna: Explain it that the person was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.

footnotes: ⁵¹ Since the original statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish referred to a case where he is more restrictive than R. Joḥanan, it is inadmissible to quote him in support of a more lenient position. In the case considered there is unanimity that for a transgression committed as a commoner, which could not have been atoned for while one was elevated, the original obligation of a purification sacrifice of a female sheep or goat is re-instituted.

MISHNAH: Anything which is more frequent than another precedes the other²⁰³ 10:1, where the implications for the Temple service are detailed. For example, if New Year’s Day falls on a Sabbath, the first sacrifices are the daily offerings (offered 365 days a year), followed by the Sabbath sacrifice (52 times), then the New Moon sacrifice (12 times), and last the New Year’s Day sacrifice (1). Synagogue practice imitates this rule.. Anything more holy than another precedes the other²⁰⁴ 10:2).. 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 ceremonies²⁰⁵. 4:13–21) are dependent on the Anointed’s sacrifice (Lev. 4:1–12). If they are offered simultaneously then the Anointed’s has precedence.. The man precedes the woman to be kept alive²⁰⁶ and to regain his lost property²⁰⁷ 2:13.. But the woman precedes the man for clothing²⁰⁸ and to be freed from captivity²⁰⁹. At a time when both are used for immorality²¹⁰, the man precedes the woman.

footnotes: ²⁰³ Anything which is done more frequently is executed before anything less frequent is done. The statement of the Mishnah is repeated in Zebahim ²⁰⁴ For example, if a person brings animals for a purification sacrifice, an elevation sacrifice, and a well-being sacrifice to the Temple, they have to be offered in this order (Mishnah Zebahim ²⁰⁵ The rules for the Court’s (the community’s) purification sacrifice (Lev ²⁰⁶ This usually is interpreted to mean that if a man and a woman are simultaneously in mortal danger, the man has to be saved first. But it also could mean that if a man and a woman are looking for a livelihood, the man has to be considered first. ²⁰⁷ Cf. Mishnah Bava Mesiaˋ ²⁰⁸ A poor man will not be hurt by appearing in rags. A woman cannot possibly be seen in rags. ²⁰⁹ A woman is more likely to be raped in captivity than a man. ²¹⁰ If they are forced into prostitution, the man is in addition forced into homosexuality.

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”,]²¹⁵ for one is atoning, the other is being atoned for²¹⁶. 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 Israel²¹⁷. 16:17. The argument really refers to the service of the Day of Atonement in its entirety, where the High Priest performs three acts of atonement, the first for himself and his family, the second for himself and the priests, and then the third for himself, the priests, and all of Israel. The priest performing the rite of atonement has to be purified himself before being able to serve others. (Tosephta Horaiot 2:4, Zevahim 10:1).. Between a voluntary gift of the Anointed and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the Anointed has precedence²¹⁸. Between a voluntary gift of the community and a voluntary gift of the prince, the voluntary gift of the prince has precedence²¹⁹. 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 idolatry²²⁰ were standing. The rams of idolatry have precedence since their blood enters inside²²¹. 4, the ram is attached to a sacrifice whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary and which, therefore, has precedence as the more holy sacrifice.. 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 ram²²², the ram precedes the other purification sacrifice, and the other purification sacrifice precedes the bull²²³. How is this done? Rebbi 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 Scripture²²⁴. 15:24, the ram in the second half.. Rebbi Samuel the brother of Rebbi Berekhiah asked: But then that of the New Moon should precede the ram which comes with it because it precedes [in Scripture.²²⁵. 28:11 (elevation sacrifices) and 28:15 (the purification sacrifice). This contradicts our rule from Note 216.]²²⁶ Rebbi Abba Mari said, you cannot do this; its purification sacrifice is defective²²⁷ 90b). But the purification offering of the special days is directly connected with the daily offerings which start the day in the sanctuary (Num. 28:15.): After the permanent elevation offering it shall be made, with its libation; 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 precedence²²⁸ Zevaḥim 10:4).. That is, if both were equal. But if one was a bull and the other a lamb, it is what Rebbi Phineas said in the name of Rebbi 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.²²⁹. Some commentators want to emend the text, in that the slave brings a bull but his master a goat. While this connects to the preceding, it severs the connection to the statement of R. Phineas. As a matter of principle, an emendation is totally inadmissible since the text is confirmed not only by the two independent sources here but also by Lev. Rabba 5(4) where the case of slave and master both bringing a bull follows a story about the merit of contributing to the support of scholars. As the text is presented here, one wonders why the following stories are placed here and what connection they could have with the topic of the Mishnah. But Lev. Rabba, an old text, shows that the case of slave and master is not a legal but a homiletic statement. There the argument is that the High Priest is the servant of the people; the Sanctuary is run only on behalf of the people. After the destruction of the Temple, the rabbinic establishment became the servant of the people, looking after their needs. Therefore, the rules of preference should be transferred from Temple service to the rabbinic establishment.”

footnotes: ²¹⁵ From B; a necessary introduction to the following text. ²¹⁶ This also is the reason given in the Babli (13a) for the precedence of a purification offering over a simultaneously presented elevation offering, both being most holy sacrifices. ²¹⁷ Lev ²¹⁸ Again because the priest has to act to present the king’s gift. ²¹⁹ Since he is the representative of the community. ²²⁰ Cf. Chapter 1, Notes 122,135. For the number of rams, cf. Mishnah 1:6. ²²¹ While this is not indicated elsewhere, if the bull is identified as the bull prescribed in Lev ²²² As will be explained later in this paragraph. ²²³ The bull of idolatry is defined as an elevation sacrifice which takes second place after a purification sacrifice (Note 216). The rules lead to an infinite loop. ²²⁴ The bull is prescribed in the first half of Num ²²⁵ The sacrifices for the Day of the New Moon are prescribed in Num ²²⁶ Added from B, not absolutely necessary. ²²⁷ The argument is very elliptic. The ram of idolatry follows the bull not really because it is mentioned later in the verse, but mainly because it is spelled defective, not as חטאת but only as חטת (Babli 13a, Zevaḥim ²²⁸ If both are voluntary offerings of equal value. But an obligatory offering always has precedence over a voluntary one (Tosephta ²²⁹ The argument is a non sequitur

²³⁰. rabba 5(4); the first one only also in Deut. rabba4(8). Here also starts a Genizah fragment of half-lines (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, pp. 281–286.) It happened that Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Joshua, and Rebbi Aqiba went to the dunes of Antiochia on the occasion of fundraising for the rabbis²³¹. 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 your want. After they left, he went to plough his half of the field. When he was ploughing in his half of the field, his cow sank down and broke [its leg]²³². 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 list²³³, Studi Classici in Onore di Quintino Cataudela, vol. 4, Catania 1972, pp. 71–72.ˋ. They took him, made him sit with them, and recited for him this verse²³⁴. 18:16.: The gifts of a man put him at ease; in front of great ones they will make him rest.

footnotes: ²³⁰ These texts are also in Lev ²³¹ Projecting third and fourth Cent. fundraising into a story dated at the first. It is a typically oriental story where people do not get rich by commercial success but by finding a treasure. ²³² Added from B. ²³³ Greek τῖμος, an old poetic form of τιμή “esteem, value, honor” appearing also in late prose texts. The talmudic form supports late classical Greek lexicography; cf. also E. and H. Guggenheimer, Talmudic Evidence for Greek Spelling ²³⁴ Prov

Rebbi 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. (The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya) [Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba]²³⁵ took him, made him sit with him, and recited for him this verse: The gifts of a man put him at ease, etc.

footnotes: ²³⁵ The impossible text in parentheses is from L; the correct text in brackets is from B.

²³⁶ Rebbi 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 amount²³⁷. Rebbi 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, etc.

footnotes: ²³⁶ In B, the last two paragraphs are in the inverse order. This is the chronologically correct order, teacher followed by student. Chronological consistency is one of the hallmarks of the Babli. ²³⁷ His cheating was that he gave the minimum amount necessary to maintain his standing as the richest man around.

“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 clothing²³⁸? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Rebbi [Ḥanina ben]²³⁹ Antigonos, the clothing of the wife of a fellow²⁴⁰ and the life of a vulgar; the clothing of the wife of a fellow has precedence over the life of a vulgar 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 fellow²⁴¹. But if there was one to be kept alive and one for clothing, the one to be kept alive has precedence.

footnotes: ²³⁸ The question really is raised about the livelihood of a woman and the clothing of a man. ²³⁹ From B; no R. Antigonos is known from other sources. G is defective here but the length of the lacuna supports the reading of B. ²⁴⁰ Here “fellow” and “vulgar” are the technical terms defined in the Introduction to Tractate Demai, respectively of a person strictly keeping all rules of levitic purity (long after the destruction of the Temple) and tithes, and one disregarding the rules of purity and lax in the observance of the rules of tithes. ²⁴¹ B has a different text: “He only said between the clothing of the wife of a fellow and the livelihood of a vulgar.” The best is the reading of G: “The clothing of the wife of a fellow during the lifetime of the fellow.”

“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.²⁴³ 2:13, Note 135.” The teacher who taught him (Mishnah) [wisdom]²⁴⁴, not the teacher who taught him Scripture. “But if his father was his teacher’s equal, his father’s lost property has precedence.”

footnotes: ²⁴³ Mishnah Bava Mesiˋa ²⁴⁴ The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. The text of B is the one from the Mishnah, the one of L can be justified as text of the Tanna R. Yose in the following paragraph.

What does it help²⁴⁵? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi 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 precedence²⁴⁶ 6:9). But the divorced mother in all respects is equal to the father (Babli Qiddušin 31a). If the father was also the teacher then he had precedence as teacher. But if he was only a partial teacher, is his claim strong enough or does the son still have the choice whom to help first?? 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 precedence²⁴⁸? 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 there²⁴⁹ 2:5.. 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 father²⁵⁰. 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.

footnotes: ²⁴⁵ How does the fact that his father was as learned as his teacher change the argument of the Mishnah? ²⁴⁶ As long as his mother was married to his father, his father has precedence since his wife also is bound to honor him (Mishnah Keritut ²⁴⁸ Is the teacher who taught him half his learning the teacher in the sense of the Mishnah or not? ²⁴⁹ The language implies that the statements in question are tannaitic, similar to the first part of Tosephta Horaiot ²⁵⁰ Babli 13a.

²⁵¹ 3:13, Notes 136–145; Moˋed qatan 3:7. Who is the teacher who taught him wisdom? The one who taught him first, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Rebbi Yose said, anyone who explained a Mishnah to him.²⁵² 2:30.” Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who said, the one from whom he received most of his instruction. Why did he not explain that this follows Rebbi Jehudah? There are Tannaïm who state it switched²⁵³. Rebbi Eleazar tore his garment for his first teacher. Samuel took off [his phylacteries] for one who had explained a Mishnah to him²⁵⁴. 24:17. The text in Bava mesiaˋ parallels the Babli (Bava mesiaˋ 33a) in reporting that he tore his garment.. What Mishnah did he explain to him? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “for one key he has to go down to his arm-pit and one opens straight.²⁵⁵ 3:6.” What means “for one he has to gown to his arm-pit,” he had to lower his hand under his arm-pit until it could be opened²⁵⁶ 30b.. Rebbi Ḥanania²⁵⁷ was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in Sepphoris, when he saw everybody running. He asked him, why is everybody running? He answered, Rebbi Joḥanan is sitting preaching in Rebbi 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 him everything except Proverbs and Ecclesiastes²⁵⁸.

footnotes: ²⁵¹ For the following, cf. Bava mesiaˋ ²⁵² Tosephta 2:5, Bava mesiaˋ ²⁵³ The name tradition in the Tosephta is not certain. ²⁵⁴ As a sign of mourning. The phylacteries are identified as the “splendor” which Ezechiel had to remove in mourning, Ez ²⁵⁵ Mishnah Tamid ²⁵⁶ The doors of the Temple Hall could be opened only from the inside. When the door was locked, a Cohen entered from a small side door which led to a guard room. The lock of this side door was hidden; the Cohen had to take the key, lower his entire arm to the arm-pit behind the partition wall and only then could insert the key. Tamid ²⁵⁷ With G read “Hanina”. ²⁵⁸ This proves that even a teacher of homiletics has the rank of teacher.

“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 natural²¹⁰. ²⁵⁹. rabbati 4(4); Babli Gittin 58a. It happened that Rebbi 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 curls²⁶⁰. 17:42, Cant. 5:11., standing in [a house of] ill repute. Rebbi Joshua went to check him out. When he came to the door, Rebbi Joshua started and said, who gave Jacob to be booty and Israel to plunderers, is that not the Eternal²⁶¹. 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 teaching²⁶¹. 42:24.. Immediately his eyes were flowing with tears and he said, I take as my witnesses heaven and earth that I shall 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 Zion²⁶². 4:2. etc.

footnotes: ²¹⁰ If they are forced into prostitution, the man is in addition forced into homosexuality. ²⁵⁹ Tosephta 2:5,6; Thr ²⁶⁰ A combination of biblical adjectives, 1S ²⁶¹ Is ²⁶¹ Is ²⁶² Thr

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite²¹¹, a Gibeonite a proselyte²¹², a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal²¹³. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes²¹⁴ the ignorant High Priest.

footnotes: ²¹¹ The bastard has (in general) genuinely Jewish parents; the Gibeonites became Jewish by deceit. ²¹² The Gibeonite’s parents were Jewish, the proselyte’s not. ²¹³ In religious learning. ²¹⁴ In honor due to him.

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. ²⁶⁴“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 watch²⁶⁵. 24), each of which served for one week in the Temple., the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan²⁶⁶, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer²⁶⁷, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer²⁶⁸, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted 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.”

footnotes: ²⁶⁴ Cf. Tosephta 2:10. ²⁶⁵ Of one of the 24 watches into which the Cohanim were organized (1Chr ²⁶⁶ A clan of priests belonging to one of the watches. The correct reading here is that of G, confirmed later also by L (lines 61ff.) ²⁶⁷ The permanent member of the Temple staff who organizes the daily routine. As a paid official he comes after the volunteers who do the actual officiating. In Babylonian sources, his title is spelled אמרכל. ²⁶⁸ The Temple treasurer.

“A Sage has precedence over the king.” If a Sage dies, we do not have a replacement²⁶⁹. If a king dies, all of Israel are qualified for the kingdom²⁷⁰.

footnotes: ²⁶⁹ This restricts the statement to a truly outstanding Sage. In G, this is not a reference to the text of the Mishnah but a continuation of the statement that a learned bastard has precedence over the boorish High Priest, “and similarly, a Sage has precedence over a king.” The text of L is that of Tosephta 2:8. ²⁷⁰ This legitimizes non-Davidic kings. The Babli (13a) agrees. The current printed Babli editions were adulterated by a censor who inserted “king of Israel”, to preserve the superiority of the ruler by the grace of God. Already Maimonides in his Commentary to the Mishnah notes that all the precedences enumerated in this Mishnah are ethical only, rather than practical.

Rebbi 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 ones²⁷¹.

footnotes: ²⁷¹ To encourage people who do not understand a subject to return to study; they can always hope that at the end the understanding will be given to them in their sleep. The argument would be better if addressed to scientists who fail to solve a problem; if they persevere they have the hope to finally receive the answer from Heaven in their sleep.

²⁷² 1:8 (5c l. 29; Notes 322–324) where R. Illai (La) notes that 4 useful things mentioned in Job can be replaced when lost. Text B has the full quotes but still lacks the necessary introduction. The homily of R. Levi is unchanged. When Rebbi Simeon ben Zevid died, Rebbi Illai rose and eulogized him. But silver has a source²¹³, etc. Iron is taken from dust²⁷⁴ 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 found²⁷⁵ 28:20., etc. It is hidden from the eyes of all living²⁷⁶ 28:21., etc. Rebbi Levi said, if the brothers of Joseph lost their spirit because they found a find, as it is written, they lost their spirit²⁷⁷ 42:28., we, who lost Rebbi Simeon bar Zevid, so much more²⁷⁸!

footnotes: ²⁷² The homily here is a considerably shortened version of one in Berakhot ²¹³ In religious learning. ²⁷⁴ Job ²⁷⁵ Job ²⁷⁶ Job ²⁷⁷ Gen. ²⁷⁸ Note in G the unusual form עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְאַחַת כַּמָּה for the common עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה “so much more”.

²⁷⁹ The king has precedence over the High Priest, as it is written: You shall let my son Solomon ride²⁸⁰. 1:33., etc. The High Priest over the prophet, as it is written: There, Ṣadoq the Priest and Nathan the Prophet shall anoint him as king²⁸¹. 1:34., etc. He mentioned Ṣadoq before Nathan. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: The prophet folds his hands and feet and sits before the High Priest²⁸². What is his reason? Listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends who are sitting before you²⁸³. 3:8.. I could think that they were common people; the verse says, because they are men of miracle, and “miracle” only means prophecy, as you say, and he gave you a sign or a miracle²⁸⁴. 13:2..

footnotes: ²⁷⁹ Tosephta 2:9, Babli 13a. ²⁸⁰ 1K ²⁸¹ 1K ²⁸² He sits on the floor or the carpet with his feet folded under him. ²⁸³ Zach ²⁸⁴ Deut

²⁸⁵“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 Israel (an Israel over a bastard²⁸⁶).” Is not the Levite equal [to an Israel]²⁸⁷? Rebbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium²⁸⁸ III, 146b; the custom is not followed by Yemenites and some other Oriental groups.). Rebbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened²⁸⁹ 6:6, Note 79) and similar stories about Elisha and Gehazi (Sanhedrin 10:3, Notes 284,286).. “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 freedwoman²⁹⁰) was a slave, she could not marry and, therefore, was free to have guiltless sex with any man she pleased (except Jews.) She cannot be supposed to have changed her ways radically upon manumission. The proselyte as a free woman is supposed to be married as a virgin (Babli 13a). is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody (run after a rat)²⁹¹ [inquire after a slave]²⁹² in law, he is irresponsible, and cannot be sued for damages. Therefore, a prospective buyer is well advised to inquire whether this slave may in the future expose him to suits for damages caused by his slave.? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ismael ben Netaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and slew Gedaliahu at Miṣpah²⁹³.

footnotes: ²⁸⁵ Tosephta 2:10, Babli 13a (cf. Notes 264–268). ²⁸⁶ This clause was erased by the scribe of L, it is not in B or G. ²⁸⁷ Added from B and G; must be understood in L. ²⁸⁸ When the Levites had a role in Temple worship, either as singers on the podium or as watchmen. The statement that Levites are no different from Israel shows that the custom that Levites have to pour water of the Cohen’s hands before he goes to pronounce the priestly blessing is not talmudic. (The source is Zohar ²⁸⁹ If a Gentile comes to a rabbi asking to become a proselyte and a Jewish apostate comes at the same time asking to be readmitted to the Jewish community, the rabbi has to deal with the apostate’s case first, not to turn him away permanently as in the case of Joshua ben Perahia (or Jehudah ben Tabbai) (Sanhedrin ²⁹⁰ As long as the freedwoman (Latin: libertina ²⁹¹ To kill them. This is the text of L, taken from the Babli 13a, but it seems that one should accept the text of B and G in brackets. ²⁹² Since the slave has no persona ²⁹³ Here ends the fragment G.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: A head²⁹⁴ and an Elder²⁹⁵, the (Elder) [head]²⁹⁶ has precedence, for nobody is a head if he is not an Elder. What is his reason? All of you are standing today²⁹⁷. 29:9; later in the verse the tribal heads are mentioned before the Elders., etc. Joshua assembled all Elders of Israel at Sichem²⁹⁸. 24:1 (misquoted); Elders are mentioned before tribal heads. Similarly in 23:2.. 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 be needed them in conquering the Land²⁹⁹. 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. Rebbi Joshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: Moses preferred heads over Elders because he saw by the Holy Ghost that in the future Israel will be (reasonable) [in trouble]¹²⁹⁶ with governments and their heads will stand up for them³⁰⁰.

footnotes: ²⁹⁴ The learned in the law, i. e., the rabbinic authorities. ²⁹⁵ The tribal heads, paradigms for later political office holders. ²⁹⁶ The text in parentheses is that of L, the one in brackets that of B,G. The reason given shows that the latter text was intended by all sources. ²⁹⁷ Deut ²⁹⁸ Jos ²⁹⁹ While he did not need them for military decisions, they prepared the maps for the distribution of the Land (Chapter 18). ¹ Here ends the fragment G. ²⁹⁶ The text in parentheses is that of L, the one in brackets that of B,G. The reason given shows that the latter text was intended by all sources. ³⁰⁰ A clear declaration of the priority of the political leadership over the religious.

It was stated: The systematizer has precedence over the dialectician³⁰². Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhia’s brother, asked: Even like Rebbi Immi? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi Immi? He is a dialectician³⁰³. This means, the Mishnah has precedence over Scripture³⁰⁴. The following supports this, as Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one who studies Scripture is a qualification which is not a qualification. But the rabbis consider Scripture equally with the Mishnah³⁰⁵. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the Mishnah has precedence over the Talmud. What is the reason? Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding³⁰⁶. 4:5. “Wisdom” is identified here as the Mishnah, the encyclopedia of traditional knowledge. “Understanding” is the explanation of the formulaic statements of the Mishnah, the Talmud, whether formulated in one of the Talmudim or in a prior state of oral explanation. Wisdom precedes understanding., etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Talmud has precedence over the Mishnah. What is the reason? Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold³⁰⁷. 16:16. The verse reads: Is acquiring wisdom not better than pure gold, acquisition of understanding more select than silver? Here also wisdom precedes understanding, but silver is everyday coin; gold is used only for major transactions and by the very rich.? How does Rebbi Joḥanan explain Rebbi 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 water³⁰⁸. How does Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman explain Rebbi 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 salt³⁰⁹ 15:7, 8.. Always pursue the Mishnah more than the Talmud. That is, before Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it³¹⁰ 21(4) which declares the study of the Mishnah as prerequisite for everything else.. But since Rebbi incorporated most Mishnaiot into it, pursue the Talmud more than the Mishnah.

footnotes: ³⁰² The scholar who can bring order into the vast amount of rabbinic traditions is on a higher level than the one who finds apparent contradictions between traditional statements and explains them by finding the underlying principles. In the Babli (14a) the question is between “Sinai” and “one who uproots mountains” (and grinds them down), i. e., between a living encyclopedia and a practitioner of dialectics, and it is reported that in Galilee Sinai was preferred. There is no mention there about an effort at systematizing and in fact it is in general impossible to derive a valid rule of practice by basing oneself on one talmudic discussion alone, but all Tractates of the Babli have simultaneously to be considered. ³⁰³ In B: “He is both a systematizer and a dialectician.” In both Talmudim, the teachings of R. Immi and his companion R. Yasa are too sporadic to allow a judgment between the two versions. ³⁰⁴ Since the Mishnah is a first attempt at systematizing Jewish teaching, its study, while presupposing a prior study of Scripture, is on a higher level since it is less anecdotal or self-contradictory. ³⁰⁵ They agree to the value of analysis and explanation of Scripture also independent of traditional interpretations. ³⁰⁶ Prov ³⁰⁷ Prov ³⁰⁸ In both verses, the less valuable but more essential is mentioned in second place. This does not make the second less essential. ³⁰⁹ He agrees that without interpretation and explanation (“the Talmud”) the Mishnah cannot be applied; the salt of the Talmud, the silver, is absolutely necessary. This does not diminish the value of the gold.A different version of the preceding arguments is in Massekhet Sopherim ³¹⁰ Here it is intimated that Rebbi’s edition of the Mishnah from the start was intended as providing the skeleton around which a systematic exposition of the Talmud, the oral tradition, could be organized. In this way, the Mishnah automatically is studied in a privileged way if the Talmud is studied. Cf. Lev. rabba

Rebbi Samuel, son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun³¹¹, preached: A rich man is wise in his own eyes, but an understanding poor man will think little of him. ³¹². 28:11. Eccl. rabba 6:2, end.A rich man is wise in his own eyes, this is the master of Talmud. But an understanding poor man will think little of him³¹³, 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 survive³¹⁴ 145b. For a negative view of homiletics three generations earlier cf. Maˋserot 3:10 Note 161 (Sopherim Chapter 15)..

footnotes: ³¹¹ One of the very last Amoraim mentioned in the Yerushalmi. He explains why his generation turned from work on a Talmud to work on Midrashim. ³¹² Prov ³¹³ Cf. Arabic حقر “to despise somebody or something, think little of him.” ³¹⁴ Nobody comes to hear lectures on Talmud, everybody comes to hear a preacher. Cf. Babli Bava batra

Rebbi Aḥa preached: Scales and balances of justice are the Eternal’s; His work are all stones in the purse³¹⁵. 16:11. The purse is the container in which weight stones are kept (Deut. 25:13, Mi. 6:11). It may also mean the wallet where money is kept, Prov. 1:14, Is. 46:6. The sermon identifies the two and declares all religious studies of equal value.. “Scales” is Scripture. “Balances” are the Mishnah. “Justice” is the Talmud. “The Eternal’s” are the additions³¹⁶. His work are all stones in the purse; they all take their wages from the same purse.

footnotes: ³¹⁵ Prov ³¹⁶ The extra-talmudic texts; not only Tosephta collections but also Midrashim and similar compositions.

³¹⁷ 6:2. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana went to a certain place where he found Rebbi 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 it³¹⁸ 6:2..Riches, that is Scripture. Properties, these are practices³¹⁹. And honor, these are the additions³¹⁶. And nothing is missing of anything he might desire, these are the great Mishnah collections³²⁰ collections such as underlying the later Tosephta, or Mishnah collections preceding or competing with Rebbi’s Mishnah. Eccl. rabba adds R. Aqiba’s Mishnah., such as the Mishnah of Rebbi Ḥuna³²¹, the reference is correctly to R. Hiyya (the Elder.), the Mishnah of Rebbi 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 Talmud³²². Rebbi 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 sitting³²³.

footnotes: ³¹⁷ Eccl. rabba ³¹⁸ Eccl. ³¹⁹ A code of practices in a culture of oral transmission was a very valuable property. ³¹⁶ The extra-talmudic texts; not only Tosephta collections but also Midrashim and similar compositions. ³²⁰ Baraita ³²¹ No collection of Rebbi Huna is known; also he would be an Amora of a later generation, unable to collect an independent collection. In Eccl. rabba ³²² Who has to master all the preceding topics and has the right to decide between forbidden and permitted acts. ³²³ R. Levi, who became the foremost preacher of his time, at this moment was rabbi of a small congregation who delivered his sermons in person standing in front of his congregation. R. Abba blessed him that he should become the head of a school who would deliver the concept of his speech to an Amora, a professional speaker, who would elaborate on the topics given to him by the head who remained seated.

If they intended to appoint Elders, from where do they appoint? From Tiberias or from the South³²⁴? Rebbi Simon said, Jehudah shall go first³²⁵. 1:2. R. Simon came from the South.. Rebbi Mana said to him, this refers to war. But for ordination, those who see the face of the king, sitting first in government³²⁶ 1:14. The preeminent rabbis at this time were in Tiberias..

footnotes: ³²⁴ The main Academy was at Tiberias in Galilee. There were minor centers of learning in the South, at Lydda and at Kefar Darom, in the plain which in Second Temple times was part of Judea. The question was which center of learning should be the first to propose candidates for ordination by the Patriarch. ³²⁵ Jud ³²⁶ Esther

³²⁷ 9:17 Note 265; most of the story in greater detail Sotah 9:13–14, Notes 212–218, and the parallels given there in Note 212. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that the Elders assembled in the upper story of the House 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 Spirit³²⁷ 9:17 Note 265; most of the story in greater detail Sotah 9:13–14, Notes 212–218, and the parallels given there in Note 212..

footnotes: ³²⁷ The same text in Sotah ³²⁷ The same text in Sotah

Those of Bar Pazi and (Bar) [Rebbi]³²⁸ Hoshaia went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rebbi Hoshaia went in first [and left first]³²⁹. 26:30. This argument is a legal argument of R. Immi’s in Šabbat 12:3 (13c l. 60). The Mishnah states that it is a prosecutable sin to write two letters on the Sabbath. Since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated after the instructions for building the Tabernacle (Ex. 31:12–17; 35:1–3) it is concluded that the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are exactly those which were necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle. R. Immi explains that all logs which formed the walls of the Tabernacle carried two letters and that sides bearing the same letters were put together when the Tabernacle was re-assembled after being transported. This is taken here as a sign that nothing should be changed; marrying into the family of the patriarch cannot erase the advantage conferred by learning.. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rebbi Immi. You shall erect the tabernacle according to its ruling³³⁰ 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.

footnotes: ³²⁸ The text of L is in parentheses, the one from B in bracketrs. Since the second family is also called “R. Hoshaia’s” later in L, and the entire story makes sense only if this family was distinguished in learning, the reading from B has to be accepted. ³²⁹ Ex ³³⁰ Ex.

³³¹ 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 councillors³³² and one rural³³³., 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 study³³⁴, 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 Priest³³⁵.” 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 pearls³³⁶.. 3:15., even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

footnotes: ³³¹ A parallel text (שׁ) is in Šabbat ³³² Greek βουλευταί. ³³³ Latin pagani ³³⁴ The text of B, “of Tiberias” has to be rejected. Not only is the text of L confirmed by the text in Šabbat ³³⁵ Mishnah 3:9. ³³⁶ Prov