Meaning his wife, as explained later in the Mishnah. To prevent him from becoming impure should the wife become impure by menstruation.
In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113.
Since the entire Temple service of the Day of Atonement has to be performed by the High Priest himself, there must be somebody trained to act as High Priest in case the officiating one becomes somehow impure and unable to continue.
Lev. 16:6.
Since the substitute wife also could die, one would need an unlimited supply of wives, but the High Priest is biblically restricted to one wife. Disqualification can be foreseen, death cannot be foreseen.
That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a.
Lev. 8:34, referring to the dedication of the Tabernacle, where Aaron and his sons spent seven full days, day and night, at the Tabernacle, far from their families.
Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.
The verb עשׂה is used in Lev. 16:15 for the blood of the goat sacrificed on the Day of Atonement. The same verb also is used in 9:7 with reference to the goat sacrificed on the eighth day of dedication which happened to be the first of the first month.
The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.
The priest in charge of burning the Red Cow to produce the ashes which cleanse from the impurity of the dead also had to be separated for seven days (Mishnah Parah 3:1).
Num. 19:2.
The dedication ceremony, where Aaron had to bring an atoning sacrifice separate from that for his sons and the people, the other is the Day of Atonement where the same is true.
The ceremonies of the Day of Atonement detailed in Lev. 16 refer exclusively to actions by the High Priest. Babli 3b.
Based on the preceding text, one has to read “does not infer” since in the explanation attributed to R. Joḥanan, burning of the Cow is not mentioned. (In the Babli 2a, an argument close to that of Bar Qappara here is attributed to R. Joḥanan, but this should be irrelevant for the study of the Yerushalmi.)
The separation of the priest who will burn the Cow is purely rabbinical; Tosephta Parah 3:1.
Here one has to read: “who infers.”
Since it is to be presumed that the Cohen selected to burn the Cow was pure, water with ashes from prior Cows will make him impure (Sifry Num. 129). But this impurity is minor, it can be removed by immersion in a miqweh and the following sundown. It is obvious that no sprinkling can be done on the day of the burning.
In fact, a Pharisee Cohen burning the Cow is made impure and has to cleanse himself in a miqweh on the day of the ceremony because of a quarrel with Sadducees, Mishnah Parah 3:7.
Everybody agrees that the rules for the Cohen burning the Cow are purely rabbinical, not accepted by Sadducees, and bar Qappara’s mention of the burning of the Cow is a far-fetched simile, not an authoritative interpretation of the verse.
Babli 3b.
In the ceremonies for the eighth day of initiation, the commandment to Aaron to take a bull and a he-goat (Lev. 9:2) is one unit; there could be no bull without a he-goat. But in Mishnah Menaḥot 4:2 it is stated that for all holiday sacrifices bulls and he-goats are independent of one another. If the rules of the Day of Atonement are derived from the rules of the initiation rites, the Mishnah would have to state an exception for the Day of Atonement.
The rules of the Day of Atonement cannot be derived from the rules of the initiation rites.
In the rules of the elevation offering of a bird (Lev. 1:15), in the same verse it is required that the Cohen break the neck of the bird and burn it in smoke on the altar.
This must read: “burning in smoke”.
The text in parentheses was first written by the scribe, the text in brackets is the correction. The original text in parentheses is the correct one. Sifra Wayyiqra I Parshata 7(4).
If the sacrifice would become impure and disqualified after the breaking of the neck but before the burning, the offerer has fulfilled his vow and it is not necessary to bring a second sacrifice.
Therefore one part of R. Mana’s objection has been shown to be invalid.
The daily offering of the High Priest (Lev. 6:12–16), a tenth of an epha of fine flour baked into “breads” (v. 14) without a specified number. “Permanent” is stated in v. 13.
The shew-bread is specified as 12 loaves, Lev. 24:5. The arrangement is called “permanent” in v. 24:8.
It is obvious that here also one has to switch the places of “shew-bread” and “panbaked breads”. The number of breads of the High Priest is fixed as 12 in Mishnah Menaḥot 6:5, but a deviation from this number invalidates only shew-bread, not the High Priest’s offering.
Ex. 12:22, the commandment to take “a bundle of hyssop”.
Lev. 23;40, the commandment to take 4 kinds of plants; it is not mentioned that they must be tied as a bundle.
In the Babli Sukkah 11b, and Sifra Emor Pereq 16(1), this is rejected as R. Jehudah’s minority opinion.
Both of R. Mana’s objections were disregarded by Tannaim; R. Simeon ben Laqish is justified.
Babli 4a.
The rule that the High Priest is separated from his family for seven days before the Day of Atonement.
Babli 4a.
Lev. 16:3.
Of Aaron’s induction into the High Priesthood.
Lev. 16:1.
He still has to explain the same verse used by R. Joḥanan and Bar Qappara, which he himself proved to be inadequate.
Ex. 24:16.
It is not a biblical requirement but popular usage supported by an aggadic argument.
Lev. 16:1.
The rules of the Red Cow and purification from the impurity of the dead are given in Num. 19; the death of Miriam is noted in v. 20:1.
The breaking of the Tablets and the story of the Golden Calf are quoted in Deut. 9:7–29; Aaron’s death is mentioned in 10:6 in a verse which requires further explanation, given in the next paragraph without reference to the Day of Atonement. Lev. rabba 20, end.
For this Aggada and more aggadic parts in this Tractate there exists a Medieval copy in the Qonteros Aḥaron of Yalqut Shimˋony reproduced by L. Ginsberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, pp. 311–313, referred to by Q. A short parallel is in the Babli, Roš Haššanah 3a; parallels are in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bešallaḥ, Masekhta de Wayassa 1; Tanḥuma Ḥuqqat 18. The entire paragraph is discussed by Rashi in his Commentary to Num. 26:13.
Deut. 10:6. According to Num., he did not die at Mosera and never was buried. In the text, the word [אל] has been added from the masoretic text and Q.
Num. 33:38.
Who had covered the Israelites’ camp from the moment of the Exodus.
Num. 21:1.
As enumerated in Num. 33.
In Q: “16 families”.
A redundant verse in 1Chr. 26:23. (See Rashi, quoted in Note 44).
Ps. 72:6.
To organize due eulogies. In this context, גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד means services to the living or the dead by a person himself, which cannot be bought by money.
The 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.
It 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.
Ex. 29:35. The verse continues, all that I commanded you.
Lev. 8:5, the declaration of Moses to the people explaining the initiation rites.
Ex. 29:1, the instruction for future initiation rites.
The 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.
The 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.
In dressing of the priests in initiation.
Ex. 29:9, the commandment to Moses.
Lev. 8:6,7,13, description of the execution.
The only talmudic Sage known of this name is the Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalaphta. But since he said, not stated, and R. Tanḥum objected that his assertion already was a tannaitic statement, he must be an otherwise unknown Amora.
Since Aaron entered the High Priesthood only on the eighth day, Moses must have acted as High Priest during the first seven. Babli Avodah zarah 34a as tannaitic statement.
Sifra Šemini Milluim 14.
Lev. 9:4.
Since the offering of the High Priest had to be brought half in the morning and half in the evening, but in the morning of the eighth day Aaron was not yet High Priest, the question is whether only the afternoon offering was made or the morning offering later in the morning.
Lev. 9:23.
The breads of the High Priest are burned on the outside altar; no service in the Tent is involved and the prior argument does not prove anything.
Lev. 8:18.
Since public sacrifices never need leaning on the sacrificial animal.
Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 13.
Since it is written (Lev. 8:35) that Aaron and his sons have to sit at the gate of the Tabernacle “seven days, day and night” All sacrifices which are eaten “one day and one night” may be eaten during the day of the sacrifice and the following night.
Since on the eighth day they were permitted to leave the Sanctuary after the completion of services.
One discusses what it means that Aaron and his sons had to sit at the gate of the Tent of Meeting “seven days, day and night”.
Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.
Ex. 25:30.
Since it is anonymous.
So even according to R. Meïr the arrangement that the twelve shew-breads were exchanged in a ceremony involving 24 priests so that the table should not be empty for one moment is recommended but not absolutely necessary.
Mishnah Menaḥot 11:7, describing the order in which the shew-bread was removed from the table in the Tent of Meeting on the Sabbath and new bread deposited when the verse prescribes that the shew-bread always be on the table.
Since it is understood that if there is no Tent of Meeting, Aaron and his sons could not sit at its gate and, as explained in the following paragraph, the Tent was every day (or also every night) disassembled and reerected, the requirement that they sit there “seven days, day and night” could only mean that every day and every night they were sitting there for some time.
They actually had to be present there only at dusk and dawn.
His statement refers to the shew-breads. He reads “always” to mean that there shall be no day on which the table be empty. Since the breads were kept there from Sabbath to Sabbath, he only requires that the new breads be delivered before dusk at the end of the Sabbath.
At the initiation of the priests.
Since it is shown in the next paragraph that every morning the Tent had to be re-erected, and Aaron and his sons were to be present in the sacred precinct day and night, the Tent was erected on day 1, and on days 2–7 was disassembled and re-erected every morning after dawn.
Since Lev. 8:34 requires that Aaron and his sons not leave the sacred domain during 7 days, but v. 35 states that they have to sit there “day and night”, it follows that they could not leave, and therefore the Tent could not be disassembled, during the days, but it could be disassembled in the night after nightfall, then re-erected for the night, and disassembled after dawn.
Sifra Ṣaw Mekhilta deMilluim 36; Num. rabba 12(18); Seder Olam Chapter 7.
Since Aaron and his sons entered service only on day 8, for the first 7 days Moses acted as High Priest (Note 64).
Since it was necessary to disassemble the Tent after the seventh night, it follows that services could be held only in presence of a Tent erected during daytime. Num. rabba 12(18).
Since for R. Joḥanan the Tent has to be standing every dawn and dusk (except for the first dawn) and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah requires (in the interpretation of R. Zeˋira) that the Tent be re-erected in the night but not for service, in 7 days and 7 nights there must be 14 erections and one less dismantling.
According to R. Ḥiyya ben Joseph the tent was erected every morning for services, disassembled and re-erected for dusk, and disassembled and re-erected for the night. In this opinion it makes no difference whether the Tent was disassembled before or after dawn. There are different name attributions in Num. rabba 12(18).
Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between.
Lev. 8:34. Since the verse implies that all of seven days the ritual commanded in Ex. 29 had to be repeated, including the erection of the Tent of Meeting.
He interprets the verse differently, Note 7.
The Tent of Meeting.
Num. 7:1. Since on this day the princes of the tribes started presenting their sacrifices, it must be the day when Aaron and his sons already officiated, the eighth day of initiation. Since the Tent of Meeting already was erected on the first day, finishing the erections on the eighth implies some dismantling in between.
Ex. 29:37. If the altar was not put out of commission in the meantime because the Tent was dismantled, only one atonement would have been necessary. Therefore every day must have seen a new commissioning of the altar.
Babli 4a. The persons referred to are the High Priest for the service of the Day of Atonement and the priest chosen to burn the corpse of the Red Cow. The sprinkling water has to penetrate the prietly garments below the blood and oil by which they were dedicated.
Ashes from all Red Cows conserved in the Temple.
One returns to the discussion of Mishnah 1, explaining why the High Priest has to live in the Temple precinct for seven days prior to the Day of Atonement. Babli 6a, Tosephta 1:1.
Lev. 15:24.
Is not Ben Bathyra’s explanation an insult to the High Priest? If this Ben Bathyra is the early Tanna (and not the later R. Jehudah ben Bathyra to whom the statement is attributed in the Babli), his argument might be an anti-Sadducee statement, since Sadducees and Pharisees accused one another of sleeping with menstruating women by following their sectarian interpretation of the biblical law; cf. Niddah 4:1 Note 3 (SJ 34).
Mishnah Ševuˋot 2:5, Notes 80,81.
If the wife becomes impure during intercourse, if then he stops moving immediately and separates after the erection has disappeared, he touched an impure woman, has to immerse himself in a miqweh, and becomes totally pure at the next sundown. But if he separates while still with erection, he had intercourse with a menstruating woman and is severely impure for seven days. Ben Bathyra’s argument presupposes that the High Priest is an ignoramus.
Deut. 6:9.
Babli 11b, Sifry Deut. 36.
Babli 11a.
These lines are copied from the discussion of the laws of mezuzah in Megillah 4:12 (ל). They have no direct connection with the topic treated here.
A direct translation would be “mole of circumcised”, which makes no sense. The explanation of Qorban haEda, “entrances of cave dwellings” has no linguistic basis and would be superfluous. A possibility is Jastrow’s explanation, ‘loading and unloading dock for mules”, from מולא, Latin mulus, mula, the mule.
If the chicken coops are part of the house and are directly accessible from the doorstep, and the areas of the openings add up to four-by-four cubits.
That it was required to have a mezuzah according to everybody.
In the Halakhah the name also appears as פלהדרין with change of liquids. Possibly derived from πάρεδρος, ὁ, “adjunct”; cf. Note 113.
Greek βουλευταί, ὁι. Since under Persian rule the High Priest also was the political head of the commonwealth, it is reasonable to assume that during his stay at the lodge also the council meetings were held there. Babli 8b.
Allon’s explanation in Tarbiz 13, p. 16, as προϊεραθέντες, ex-priests, is the correct one.
Reading עבידה for עבידה. The meaning of Palhedrin should be seen as pejorative.
Since in theory the appointment as High Priest is for life, later generations had difficulty to understand how the appointment to the High Priesthood could be on a yearly basis. They had to assume that the acting High Priest died within his year.
Pr. 10:27. Babli 9a.
This popular saying refers to another story, told in Pesiqta dR. Cahana, Ekha: R. Levy said, it happened that a woman honored a judge with a silver candelabrum. Her opponent in the suit went and honored him with a golden foal. The next day the woman went and found the judgment against her. She said to him, My lord, may the judgment be radiant before you like the silver candelabrum. He said to her, what can I do? The foal overturned the candelabrum.
The Yerushalmi text is quoted in Sifry Num. 131; Pesiqta dR. Cahana A hare Mot towards end, Lev. rabba 21(8).
Babli 9a/9b.
The technical term for incest and adultery (all crimes prohibited in Lev. 18.)
Latin suetum (E. G.).
Is. 22:8.
Ps. 137:7.
From here on there is a parallel in Horaiot 3:3, Notes 146–188 and Megillah 1:12.
Since the Chapter starts with God’s commandment to inaugurate the Tabernacle, the mention here of God’s commandment is redundant and may be interpreted as a new commandment for future generations.
Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw 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.
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.
As the Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim 3:3, Note 57; Megillah 1:12 72a 1. 47, Ševuot 1:8, 33b 1.13). 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. Tosephta 1:4.
That the separation of the High Priest from his wife for seven days has some biblical justification. A much shorter version covering both interpretations given here is in Sifra Ṣaw, Mekhilta de Milluim 37; differently Babli 2a.
In addition to the two parallels there are short versions in the Babli 47a, Tosephta 3:20, Lev. rabba 20 (end), Tanḥuma Aḥare 7, Tanḥuma Buber Aḥare 9 (Note 127), Num. rabba 2(end), Pesiqta dR. Cahana Aḥare (ed. Buber Note 126), Avot deR. Natan A, Chap. 35 (ed. Schechter fol. 35a.)
There can be little doubt that the scribe’s text is the correct one; the corrector’s text is an unjustified emendation. The question is discussed in detail by S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah iv, pp. 805–806. Speculations about the background of this tradition are in H. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden 3/2, Note 19ii (4th. ed., pp. 738–739).
Ps. 45:14.
he one appointed to deliver the exhortations prescribed in Deut. 20:1–15.
Prescribed for the High Priest in Lev. 6:15.
Ex. 29:30. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli 72b/73a.
1Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.
Num. 27:1–15.
Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is the R. Yose quoted 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.
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 be 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.
The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in Deut. 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.
Ex. 29:30 continues: To be anointed in them and inducted into office. Since the one Anointed for War is anointed, he seems to qualify.
Since the Anointed for War was anointed, he seems to qualify.
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 Ḥiyya, the companion of R. Jeremiah’s teacher R. Zeˋira. In the Babli, 73a, the students of R. Joḥanan point out that R. Joḥanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating.
Num. 10:8.
Num. 10:8.
The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Num. 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).
Lev. 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. Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8((4–5).
The High Priest in Second Temple times who was not anointed since the anointing oil prepared by Moses was lost.
In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.
Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.
It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot 12b s, v. כהן).
Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.
Here end the parallels in Horaiot and Megillah.
Lev.16:11.
Sifra Aḥara Mot Pereq 8(6). He cannot marry her outright since a High Priest (and any priest aspiring to that position) is restricted to a single wife, as explained later in the paragraph.
Emission of semen, an example of impurity which even if removed immediately disables a person from performing sacral acts before the next sundown.
Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it.
Mishnah Gittin 3:3 (Note 79). While the Mishnah is anonymous, the fact that R. Jehudah does not oppose the ruling indicates that he approves of it.
Babli 55a, Tosephta Šeqalim 3:3, Gittin 7:4 (Notes 195–107). The horns were openings of boxes where people could deposit money for specified sacrifices and assume that the boxes would be emptied every day and the necessary sacrifices offered. In particular a woman after childbirth who may not eat sancta unless she brought her purification sacrifice may deposit the money and eat sancta after sundown without inquiring whether the offering had actually been brought. A “nest” is a couple of pigeons or turtle-doves.
If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her.
If a woman designates a couple of birds as her sacrifice, one of them is a purification sacrifice. If she dies between designation and offering, the purification sacrifice can neither be offered nor redeemed. Therefore the money which she deposited in the horn cannot be used, but it cannot be determined which coins are those coming from her.
Since the Day of Atonement follows the Sabbath rules and the High Priest would have to get a new wife immediately if his wife die after nightfall of the day, should not his wife’s death disqualify him from the service since preliminary marriage is an act of acquisition forbidden on the Sabbath? (Since the High Priest is forbidden to defile himself for any corpse, in contrast to a common priest he is not disabled by the death of a close relative.)
Of the daily sacrifice, so that he should be used to it since on the Day of Atonement he has to perform all sacrificial acts unaided.
Of the candelabrum in the Temple, including lighting it anew; this also is his duty on the Day of Atonement.
The parts which are taken first to the altar (Mishnah 2:7).
While in general jobs in the Temple service are distributed by a lottery, the High Priest may perform any duty he chooses before the other jobs are distributed.
Even if he did not participate in the sacrificial acts.
How can the High Priest officiate if he is sprinkled with the water containing ashes of the Red Cow (Note 95) since the ashes, while cleansing the person impure in the impurity of the dead, are defiling a pure person (Sifry Num. 129, based on Num. 19:21)? Cf. Note 17.
Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b.
The two leavened breads as public offering on Pentecost.
Of the 12 shew breads becoming available every Sabbath.
Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b.
Since the Mishnah states that he takes “a part”.
Lev. 2:3. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq 11(1).
Lev. 24:9 (on the shew-bread); Sifra Emor Pereq 18(10).
Greek βουλή, ἡ.
Greek στρατήγιον, τό, “the general’s tent”, the rural district under the direct command of the local military commander, not under the authority of the city council.
The entire district was under the obligation to contribute to a “voluntary” gift, such as crown money at the accession of a new emperor, requested (imposed) by the government.
Tosephta Menaḥot 12:7.
The flour offerings in the Temple were all multiples of the issaron, one tenth of an ephah, or 3/10 of a seˋah, approximately 3.6 liter.
As quoted later in this paragraph, since flour offerings have to be brought mixed with oil, it is a rule (Mishnah Menaḥot 12:4) that the maximum flour offering which can be brought in one vessel is 60 esronim.
This is the essence of R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection to Rebbi’s interpretation of the verse. Since even if it should be clear that the intent was to split evenly, it is not a strict condition, therefore Rebbi’s inference that the verse prescribes an even split between Aaron and his sons is not justified.
Mishnah Menaḥot 12:4; Tosephta 12:8–9/
R. Abba bar Mamal’s objection could only be substantiated by a baraita which does not involve 60 esronim.
Therefore Rebbi’s argument has to be rejected.
Since the Temple rules belong to ritual law, but the right of the High Priest is a matter of monetary claim, do they necessarily follow identical rules?
There was found a baraita which supports R. Abba bar Mamal. It is not clear which subject and which person the baraita refers to.
The person offering 60 esronim.
Of the seven days of preparation.
The eight garments prescribed for the High Priest.
The legal difference between a vow and a voluntary offering, which also needs dedication, is that a vow is formulated as a personal obligation, “I am taking upon me the obligation to offer such and such a sacrifice.” In that case, if the animal selected for the sacrifice becomes disqualified for any reason, the maker of the vow has to bring a replacement. A voluntary offering is a dedication, “this animal shall be such-and-such a sacrifice.” If the animal becomes disqualified, no replacement is due.
He seems to imply every Sabbath and holiday during the year, including New Year’s Day and the Sabbath preceding the day of Atonement.
The diadem (Ex. 28:36–38) which is worn to eliminate iniquities of sancta, to legitimate sacrifices even if they do not completely satisfy the prescribed rules.
Ex. 29:38.
When the High Priest officiates in white robes without the diadem.
The Pharisaic High Court. The Mishnah has to be dated to Herodian times since the Hasmonean kings all acted as High Priests.
Lev. 16.
Tosephta 1:6.
Lev. 21:10.
If he was not rich, the other Cohanim should donate money to make him rich.
Therefore an ignorant High Priest should be an impossibility.
Since these High Priests were not anointed (cf. Horaiot 3:4), the verse does not necessarily apply to Second Temple High Priests.
A reformulation of Mishnah 3:3. Since the Mishnah here states that one lets him stand at the gate but not that he has first to immerse himself in a miqweh, it follows that a pure person may enter the Temple courtyard without an additional immersion if he does not intend to serve there. Therefore if the High Priest was standing inside the gate, the Mishnah here agrees with the Mishnah there that the first immersion of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement is not connected with the special rules of that day. But if he was standing outside, no immersion is required, and nothing can be inferred from the Mishnah here.
Even though this sentence seems to be part of this Halakhah in a badly preserved Genizah fragment (Ginzberg p. 117), it does not belong here but is a statement (quoted there in the name of R. Mana) in Halakhah 5:6 (Note 187).
Babli 18a.
And in the following night he was not permitted to sleep.
Babli 18a.
Ps. 127:1. If the Eternal does not build the house, in vain toil its builders.
Enumerated in Mishnah Avot 5:5. One of the ten miracles was that never was the High Priest incapacitated by an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement.
Deut. 6:16.
Mishnah Avot 5:5 applies only to the First Temple.
The place where the incense was prepared for use in the Temple.(Mishnah 3:11, Tamid 1:1.) They had first to instruct him in the Pharisee interpretation of the verses since the matter of presentation of the incense in the Temple was the only matter of controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees in the service of the day of Atonement. Then they had to make him swear to follow the Pharisaic rules.
As explained in the Halakhah.
The place where incense was prepared.
The fourth gate on the South side of the Temple precinct proper. Babli 19a.
Babli 19b, Tosephta 1:8.
The problem is Lev. 16:13: He shall put the incense on the fire before the Eternal, and the incense cloud shall cover the cover which is on the testimonials so that he should not die. The Pharisaic interpretation is that the first part of the verse implies that the incense should be put into the fire inside the Holiest of Holies, which is before the Eternal. The Boethusian interpretation is based on the second part of the verse, that the cloud should cover him already at the entry into the Holiest of Holies.
Babli 19b, Tosephta 1:8.
This text also appears in Sukkah 4:8 (ב). It is an intellectual construct, rather than a historical report.
Where the Sadducees insisted that the Cohen who burns the Red Cow must be pure from the preceding sundown. However, it is difficult to square what is reported in Tosephta Parah 3:8 with what is presumed here: “It happened that a Sadducee was pure from the preceding sundown when he came to burn the Cow, but Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai realized it; he came and leaned both of his hands on him and told him, Sir High Priest, how wonderful you are as High Priest, go and immerse yourself. He went down and immersed himself. After he came back he grated his earlobe and said to him, Ben Zakkai, when I shall be free to deal with you; he answered him, if you will be free. It was not three days before they put him in the grave.”
Biblical impurity is only original impurity and derivative impurity in the first degree. Rabbinic impurity has derivative impurity in the second degree for unwashed hands, third degree impurity for heave, and fourth degree for sacrifices. Therefore, the intrinsically pure Ben Zakkai (who before the destruction of the Temple was not Rabban), by putting his second degree impure hands on the priest defiled the latter for sacra and forced him to immerse himself in a miqweh. Our sources seem to describe the Sadducee position correctly; cf. Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4Q394, lines 16–18.
Mishnah Sukkah 4:8, Tosephta Sukkah 3:16. The popular ceremony of water offering on the altar has no explicit foundation in the biblical text and was opposed by Sadducees (possibly only by the Boethusian sect.) A priest who poured out the water in contempt of the rite was killed by the etrogim (citrus medica) which the people threw at him.
. Babli Pesaḥim 57a, Keritut 28a.
At Tabernacles, when the people threw their etrogim at the priest standing on the altar. Tosephta Sukkah 3:16; Babli Sukkah 48b.
The extension at half-height of the altar, allowing a priest to walk around the altar and pour blood at its four corners.
. A hollow at the base of the altar into which remnants of sacrificial blood were poured.
.Lev. 16:17.
Ez. 1:10.
If the offending priest was hit on his head by a calf’s foot it must have been by one of the four-headed angels seen by Ezechiel whose feet are calves’ feet (Ez. 1:7)
Babli 53a, Sifra Aḥare Pereq 3(11).
Lev. 16:12–13.
Lev. 16:2.
Lev. 16:13.
Corrector’s misquote.
Babli Keritut 6a.
Sifra A hare Introduction (13).
Lev. 16:1.
The tannaitic position is rejected. While the death of the two sons of Aaron made an atonement ceremony necessary, their deaths cannot be punishment for infractions of laws not yet promulgated.
Explains biblical verses either legalistically or as homilies.
As technical term, קורא always means reading biblical texts with the masoretic accents. (which in those times were not written but had to be memorized.)
Babli 19b; there the question is not between r and l but between b and p with opposite readings in the printed edition and the Munich ms.
“Dove”. kabōtar in Pahlevi, كبوتر kabūtar in Farsi.
Tosephta 1:9, Babli 19b.
The removal of the ashes from the previous day is the required action before the service of the new day may start; Lev. 6:1–6.
To let the High Priest start the office of the day at the earliest possible moment.
On holidays and the Day of Atonement.
Everybody involved in the service of the fast day. R. Mana’s opinion is not mentioned in the Babli.
Washing hands and feet before any sacral act is an absolute requirement, Ex. 30:17–21. But the water used on one day would become unusable the next day unless it is at least 40 seˋah, the minimum volume of a miqweh whose water always is pure. Therefore the wash basin of the priests has to be immersed in a large miqweh during the night and can be lifted for easy use only at dawn. For the removal of ashes on the special days, hands and feet have to be washed in the miqweh. In the interpretation of the Babli Zevaḥim 21b, R. Joḥanan holds that since the removal of the ashes is the start of the service of the next day, the Cohen washing for the removal does not have to wash again for the morning service.