Commento su Horayot 3:11

If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his priesthood - And he was unable to bring his offering until after he had already relinquished his priesthood.

Introduction In the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office. The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king. As a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.

The anointed priest brings a bull offering - And even if he transgressed after he relinquished his priesthood, we say later on in our Mishna that he brings a bull offering. We only mention [the offering of an anointed priest] because we needed to teach that a ruler brings a he-goat when he transgresses before he relinquishes [his rulership], therefore we also teach [/mention] that an anointed priest brings a bull offering.

If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat. The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office. The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice. Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office. Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king.

And the ruler brings a he-goat. As it says (Leviticus 4:3) "for the sin that he transgressed," which teaches us that he brings a sin offering in accordance with his obligation at the time of his sin.

כהן משיח שעבר ממשיחותו וכו' – even though he does not perform [the Divine Service], he still remains in his holiness, for there is no difference between a Kohen who serves and a Kohen who has passed from service, other than the Divine Service and the bullock of Yom Kippur and one-tenth of an ephah that he offers on each day, as is mentioned further on (see Mishnah Horayot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4; see also Mishnah Megillah, Chapter 1, the end of Mishnah 9).

Introduction Mishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.

If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person. When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four). Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull. However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep.

הרי אלו כהדיוט – as it states concerning the ruler (Leviticus 4:22): “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt [by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt],” that he sinned while he was the ruler. And similarly, regarding the anointed priest, it is stated there (Leviticus 4:3): “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, [so that blame falls upon the people…,” that he sinned while he was the anointed priest.

Introduction The first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position. Section two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler. Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”. In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king. However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below. It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi). However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.

If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God. If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals. As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling. In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite. However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt. Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant. In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable. According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.

As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king. This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”. Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe. That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7).

המרובה בגדים – for after the flask of anointing oil was hidden away the Kohen Gadol would enter the High Priesthood through the wearing of eight [sets of] clothing, as it is written (Leviticus 21:10): “…and who has been ordained to wear the vestments…”

Introduction During the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests. From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments. The first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments. The second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.

אלא פר הבא על כל המצות – the [High Priest] who wears the many dedicated garments does not bring a bullock on his inadvertent sin, as it is written (Leviticus 4:3,5): “the anointed priest.

And who is the anointed priest? He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of. Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”. Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments. In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.

בעבודת יום הכפורים – for the Divine service of that day is not fit other than through the High Priest alone. But the presently serving Kohen and one who served in the past are equivalent concerning these things.

This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things. The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.

ולא פורעין ולא פרומין – as it is written concerning the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10): “[he] shall not bare his head or rend his vestments.”

The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office. The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13). The former high priest does not make these offerings.

ומחזירין את הרוצח – if one of these dies, the killer returns from his city of refuge, as it is written (Numbers 35:28): “[For he must remain inside his city of refuge] until the death of the high priest…”

With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same. Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest. Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14). Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11). They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.). At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6).

כהן גדול פורם מלמטה – If he sustained a death where he is obligated to tear [his clothing], he tears from the bottom at the corner of his garment nearest his feet. And this [verse] that is written (Leviticus 21:10): “or rend his vestments,” for he does not rend like other people.

Introduction In the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies. Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does. In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.

מלמעלה – opposite/corresponding to the breast near the shoulder, like other people.

A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them. If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom. When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above. In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.

אונן – he who sustained a death from one of the seven relatives that he (i.e., a Kohen) is obligated to mourn for, the entire day of death, whether the deceased is buried whether it is not buried [that day], he is an Onan/mourner before the funeral of a kinsman according to the Torah, and from the day of death and onwards, all the while that the deceased is not buried, he is an Onan according to the Rabbis, but the day of burial he is an Onan according to the Rabbis all that day, even after the burial, and from when the deceased is buried on the first day of death, all that night afterwards, he is an Onan according to the Rabbis.

An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner). According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial. Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”. He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day. We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19). It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them. Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people.

כהן גדול מקריב אונן ולא אוכל – from the Holy Things, for such we found with Aaron on the day that Nadav and Avihu died, he said (Leviticus 10:19): “Had I eaten purification offering today, would the LORD have approved?” On the eating he was stringent but not n the bringing of the offering. And specifically, Aaron who was the High Priest, but his sons who were common priests, they were forbidden that entire day whether to offer [a sacrifice] or to eat from it.

התדיר מחבירו הוא קודם – as Scripture states (Numbers 28:23): “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering.” For since it is written, “the morning portion of the regular burnt offering,” why does it mention “the regular burnt offering?” But, because the All-Merciful stated – because it is more frequent, it precedes it in the first part [of the verse].

Introduction This mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed. The importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in laws of prayer.

וכל המקודש מחבירו וכו' – for so we find with the Kohen as it is written concerning him (Leviticus 21:8): “and you must treat them as holy,[since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you, for I the LORD who sanctify you am holy],” and we say to open first [with the Torah reading] and to bless first (with the invitation to the group to recite the Birkat HaMazon/Blessing after the Meals) and to take the first nice portion.

Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details. Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done. This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered. Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive. A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine. Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion. Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly. We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked. During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat. This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat. Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week. On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm. The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.

פר משיח קודם – for since the anointed bull atones and the community atones, and it is by law that what atones comes prior to that which obtains atonement. And similarly, Scripture states (Leviticus 16:17): “When he has made expiation for himself and his household”, and afterwards,“for the whole congregation of Israel.”

In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first. We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.

If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence. This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for. This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.” He takes precedence over all of Israel.

As is known, men are responsible to fulfill all the commandments and women are responsible for some of them, as explained previously in Kiddushin. He is more holy and therefore takes precedence in life and death matters.

האיש קודם לאשה –for he is holier than her, for a man is liable for all of the commandments, but a woman is not liable for positive time-bound commandments.

Introduction In the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered. In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah. Our mishnah contains another such principle.

And when it is said that both of them are at risk of molestation, Heaven forbid, when both of them are held captive and the captors desire them both for relations, the man is redeemed before the woman because this [type of behavior] is not the way of a man and their desire for him is not natural for him.

והאשה קודמת לאיש בכסות – for her shame is greater than the shame of a man.

A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman. Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values. Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence. Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first. If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence. This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man. Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity. Men are not usually raped during captivity. We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first. According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman.

לקלקלה – for sexual intercourse and for pederasty.

והאיש קודם – this is her practice in this matter and it is not his practice in this matter.

לוי קודם לישראל – [see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 8]. As it is written (Deuteronomy 10:8): “At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi [to carry the Ark of he LORD’s Covenant, to stand in attendance upon the LORD…].”

Introduction The mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.

ישראל קודם לממזר – this one (i.e., the Israelite) is of legitimate descent and that one (i.e., the Mamzer) is not of legitimate descent.

A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest. According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit. The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others. A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite. A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer. A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4). Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin. A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system. Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked. We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology. While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah. A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status. In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah. The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations! We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah. This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim. As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order. In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates. The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate. Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning. Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth.

ממזר קודם לנתין – this one (i.e., the Mamzer) comes from a fit drop and that one (i.e., the Nattin) comes from an unfit drop.

נתין קודם לגר – this one grew among us in holiness where as that one (i.e., the convert) did not grow among us in holiness.

גר קודם לעבד – this one was not included among those who were cursed and that one (i.e., the servant) was among those who were cursed (see Genesis, chapter 9, verse 25: “Cursed be Canaan; The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”).

ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ – as it is written (Proverbs 3:15): “She is more precious than rubies; [All your goods cannot equal her.]” She is more precious than a High Priest who enters into the innermost place.