Talmud su Levitico 6:15

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.¹³³The text and the following paragraphs up to the quote from Idiut 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 bull¹³⁴The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.. What is Rebbi Meir's reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁵Tosephta 2:3.. What is the rabbis' reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed¹³⁶The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.. Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war¹³⁷The 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).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here¹³⁸Lev. 6: 15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest. is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb¹³⁹Mishnah 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)].. But here¹⁴⁰In the Chapter on purification sacrifices. they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb¹⁴¹Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of "the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead" does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.. But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat¹⁴²As 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.. 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 king¹⁴³Since Cohen may simply mean "public servant" (2S. 8: 18).. If you would say already this¹⁴⁴The unintelligible בפר in the text here is a plausible misreading for כבר. precedes the paragraph about the king¹⁴⁵Which is only the third In the Chapter. The argument is parallel to that mentioned in Note 131., 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.

I could think that the one anointed for war¹³⁷The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1). should (not)¹⁶²Text of L, missing in the two parallels and contradicted by the following text. bring his tenth of an ephah¹³⁹Mishnah 4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of a ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. The verse says¹³⁸Lev. 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 says¹⁶³Ex. 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 Priest¹⁶⁴Since 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).? [As is written,] ¹⁶⁵1Chr. 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 needle¹⁶⁶Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose¹⁶⁷R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son., he said to him, “before, he was with him.” In the days of Zimri¹⁶⁸Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea¹⁶⁹Jud. 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.

Not only if he died, but even if he became impure; and even if he became disabled by a defect⁸⁷Since Lev. 6:13 reads: this is the offering of Aaron and his sons which they have to offer to the Eternal, the daily flour sacrifice should be offered by the High Priest himself. While the service can be delegated to a common priest, the High Priest must be able to do it himself. If somehow he is disabled, it is as if there were no High Priest.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaia⁸⁸A Second Temple source.: Even if he became disabled by a defect. ⁸⁹Babli Menaḥot51b; Sifra Ṣaw Pereq5(3).“From where that if a High Priest dies and no other was appointed in his stead that his flour offering is brought from the heirs? The verse says⁹⁰Lev. 6:15., from his sons he shall make. I could think that he should bring it in halves, the verse says, it, entire I said, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, it only comes from the public, for it says, an eternal law, (to whom the creatures belong.)⁹¹This text does not make any sense. It seems necessary to adopt the reading of Sifra, בְּרִית “covenant”, instead of “creatures”. Then, Ravad explains, the expression חָק־עוֹלָ֕ם is compared to the same expression used for the shew-bread (Lev. 24:9) where in v. 8 בְּרִ֥ית עוֹלָֽם is used. The translation then is: “who are in the covenant.” The Babli (loc. cit.) simply reads עוֹלָם as in rabbinic Hebrew “public”. Totally it shall be burned, all is for burning.