תּלמוד אויף ויקרא 6:15

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the tenth of an ephah and breeches obstruct⁵⁴The presentation of twelve breads which is the daily offering of the High Priest (Note 26) and the initiation of offering of a common priest (Lev. 6:13) as well as the breeches which are part of the priests’ holy garments (Ex. 28:42–43), even though they are mentioned neither in the instructions for the initiation rites given to Moses (Ex. 28) nor in the record of the execution of these instructions (Lev. 8), are necessary and the omission of the offering or failure to wear the breeches would have invalidated the entire proceedings. Babli 5b.. What is the reason? Both are “making”⁵⁵It is held that every commandment using the verb עשה requires strict adherence to the rules given by this verb. The verb is used for the initiation of a priest in Lev.6:14, for the high priest in Lev. 6:15, and Moses is ordered to “make breeches” for the priests in Ex. 28:42.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, and do with Aaron and his sons so⁵⁶Ex. 29:35. The verse continues, all that I commanded you., all which is written in the Chapter obstructs. This comes following what Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is the word⁵⁷Lev. 8:5, the declaration of Moses to the people explaining the initiation rites., and this is the word⁵⁸Ex. 29:1, the instruction for future initiation rites., even reading the Chapter obstructs. Rebbi Joḥanan said, anything obstructing for future generations obstructs here, [and anything not obstructing for future generations does not obstruct here.] What do you have? The leaning of hands⁵⁹The leaning of hands of Aaron and his sons on the heads of the sacrificial animals (Ex. 29:10,15,19) which for the initiation rites is an essential act but in the rules of sacrifices (Lev. 1–5) is prescribed only for private offerings, and in no case would the failure to follow the requirement disqualify the sacrifice. and the remainders of the blood⁶⁰The remainder of the blood collected by the Cohen after the required sprinkling of blood on the altar walls has to be poured into the base of the altar. But this act is not required for validity of the sacrifice; if the blood becomes impure after the sprinkling, the blood has to be otherwise disposed of but the sacrifice is unquestionably valid. These cases represent the points of difference between R. Ḥanina and R. Joḥanan. Babli 4b (bottom), switching attributions. which are not obstructing in future generations are obstructing here. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the diadem and Aaron’s mitre precede the sons’ belts⁶¹In dressing of the priests in initiation.. Jehudah the great says, you shall gird them with belts, Aaron and his sons⁶²Ex. 29:9, the commandment to Moses.. Rebbi Idi said, what you are saying is as a meritorious deed. But as a commandment, Moses brought near Aaron and his sons and washed them in water, and after that, he put the vest on him, and after that, Moses brought Aaron and his sons near and clothed them with shirts⁶³Lev. 8:6,7,13, description of the execution..

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.