skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Every Kohen has to sanctify his hands and feet by washing them from a special large Temple vessel in the morning. Otherwise, his service is invalid.
Rav Assi could not understand the difference between this washing and the ten washings of the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which accompany his five changes of garments - since they do not invalidate the service. Rabbi Yochanan explained to him that the phrase "and then don them" tells us that the garments are essential, but washing is not. Rav Assi's face lit up. But his joy was premature, because Rabbi Yochanan then said, "and by the same token the morning washing should not be significant."
Even if a Kohen was offering animal limbs on the Altar all night, Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that he needs to wash them again at dawn, but Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon says that he does not need to repeat the washing even if he serves for ten days in a row.
If a Kohen steps out of the Temple, does he need to repeat the washing on return, because he took his mind off the service, or does he not, because he can choose to return any time? No decision is reached.
Art: Mattia Preti - Pilate Washing his Hands 1663
For a Kohen, a small bandage around a wound is forbidden, because it constitutes an extra garment. Another opinion is that an extra garment is only important in the place of garments, or on the right hand, which is used for service.
Rava asked a series of questions. If the wind entered the Kohen's garment, does this invalidate the service because the garment is not “on his body,” or is it a normal manner of wearing? Does a louse constitute interposition between the kohen's body and the garment? The dead one certainly does, but what about a live one? Since it comes and goes, it is like a growth on his body, or, since he does not like it, it is an interposition? What about the dust of the earth, a hand in his bosom, or thread hanging from the garment?
Art: Peeter Franchoys - Ruby on the Fingernail
Any Kohen priest who lacks the required four priestly garments, invalidates the sacrificial service. The four garments are pants, tunic, belt, and hat. Since the Torah said that “You shall girdle them with sash and put turbans on them and the priesthood will be for them an eternal law”, we see that when they have all the garments, they are considered priests, but if they lack some, they are considered strangers, and a stranger invalidates the service.
If they have extra garments, the extra ones invalidate the service because the required garments should be “on the body” and not on other garments. If the garments are too long, too short, or fitting well but shortened by the belt, some say that they are valid, and some say that they are not. However, all agree that if they were too long (dragging) but were shortened by the belt to the desired size, that is fine.
Art: John Bagnold Burgess - The Favourite Priest
One who is ritually impure today (tevul yom), for example, because of a contact with a dead rat, has to go to a mikveh. Still, some vestiges of ritual impurity linger until nightfall. If he receives the blood of a sacrifice, he makes it invalid, because of a verse “They shall be holy... and they shall not profane.” This verse is extra, and we apply it to the one who is partially impure.
One who lacks atonement. Some special cases of impurity, such as spiritual leprosy (metzora) require purification in stages, the last stage being bringing the sacrifices. Until he has brought them, he invalidates the service.
Why did the Torah have to teach both cases, if they are so closely related anyway? - Because each possesses its own stringency, so that the disqualification of one cannot be derived from the other. The “impure today” cannot eat the Kohen's portion, but the one who lacks atonement can. On the other hand, the one who lacks atonement needs a positive action, that is, bringing his sacrifices, whereas the one who is “impure today” only needs nightfall, which comes by itself.
Art: Sir Edwin Henry Landseer - Ratcatchers
A non-Kohen. Only the priests who are the descendants of Aharon can serve in the Temple. The Torah said, “Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they shall separate themselves from the holies of the children of Israel and they shall not profane...”
A kohen whose relative, one of the seven close ones – father, mother, brother, unmarried sister, son, daughter, or spouse - has died this day. Since Aharon was specifically requested to continue the service after his two sons died, “And he need not leave the Sanctuary and he will not profane...”, we understand that all other Kohanim would profane the service.
Although the ruling above mentions only receiving the blood, the same disqualification also applies to the other two steps – carrying the blood and throwing it on the Altar. The slaughter, however, is valid if done by a non-Kohen, since the Torah said, “And he slaughters, and a Kohen receives the blood.”
Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - The Artists Family
They tried to answer this question based on another rule: if a Kohen is sitting, he is disqualified from carrying the blood. It must be, therefore, that when he is standing, he can carry the blood! - No, because maybe by "sitting" the rule means moving by dragging himself in a sitting position. No proof can be deduced from here!
They tried to answer the question from a different rule: on Passover, the sacrifice would be slaughtered by its owner, and a Kohen would receive the blood, pass it to his fellow, and so on until it reached the Altar. We see from here that one does not have to walk! - No, we don't see it - perhaps they moved a little. Then why were they many? The service of God is better with many.
Rabbi Yochanan concluded, "Conveying the blood without moving one's feet is not a valid service."
Art: Jan Victors - Hannah Giving Her Son Samuel to the Priest
Said Resh Lakish, “Rabbi Shimon agrees about those offerings that are slaughtered in the Courtyard and then carried inside the Temple Hall (such as Yom Kippur offerings) that the wrong intention does invalidate them – since this walking cannot be circumvented.
Seeing that walking has somewhat lenient requirements, they asked Rav Chisda if it can be done by a non-kohen. Rav Chisda said that it can, quoting “and they slaughtered the Passover offering, and the kohanim threw the blood from their hands” - it must be that the non-kohanim who slaughtered also walked with the blood! However, Rav Sheshet disproved this, and as far as the quote, he explained that the non-kohanim just stood like pillars but did not move at all.
Art: David Roberts - Hall of Columns, Karnak, from Egypt
Rabbi Tarfon was distressed that he had previously heard from his teacher that there is a difference between the laws of receiving blood and throwing it, but he could not remember what the difference was. Rabbi Akiva deduced three points of difference on his own - for example, if one receives the blood outside the Temple, he is not liable, but if he throws the blood on an altar outside the Temple, he is liable to excision.
At this Rabbi Tarfon remembered that this was what he had learned and exclaimed, “Akiva, whoever parts from you is like one who parts from his life!”
Art: Arthur Hacker - Vale Or Farewell
A Passover offering should be brought in the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nissan, for its sake. Bringing it as any other sacrifice makes it completely invalid.
What happens if one changed two of these conditions: he brought it early, in the morning of the fourteenth, and for the sake of a different sacrifice (one can imagine that he rushed early in the morning, but then realized that it was too early and decided to bring it as a peace-offering).
Rabbi Yehoshua considers this as if he brought it on the thirteenth, and as any Passover sacrifice brought outside its time as a different one, it is valid. Ben Beteira says that morning is like afternoon, and the sacrifice is invalid.
Ben Azzai goes back to the very first ruling of this Tractate and disagrees with it, saying, based on a tradition from the seventy-two members of the Sanhedrin, that sacrifices that are eaten, if brought for a different type, are valid. This rule adds only the burnt offering to the invalid ones, but the Sages did not agree with him.
Art: Jacopo d'Antonio Negretti - Passover
What is the reason of the Sages - for seemingly, the Torah supports Rabbi Eliezer? The Sages defend with this logic: if burnt offering, which is completely burnt, is not disqualified by bringing its blood inside the Temple, then the guilt-offering, which is not completely burnt, surely cannot be thus disqualified! Now the arguments are as follows:
* burnt offering is no proof, because it does not achieve atonement!
* but the flour of a the one who swore falsely achieves atonement and still it is not disqualified if part of it is brought inside!
* but the flour does not require slaughter!
* but burnt offering does require slaughter and is not disqualified!
We came a full circle. What is common between all these? That they are holy and are not disqualified by bringing their blood inside, so the guilt-offering is not disqualified – say the Sages.
Art: Abraham Solomon - Not Guilty (The Acquittal)
Resh Lakish says that it is valid, but Rabbi Yochanan says that such a sacrifice is invalid. Rabbi Yochanan says that it is invalid, because he subscribes to the following principle: one can effectively “think ahead,” that is, that an intention that the kohen has for the following step of the service can affect what he is doing now. This result comes out because Rabbi Yochanan compares the intention that changes the type of sacrifice to the intention that changes its proper time or place, about which we will learn that it indeed disqualifies the offering. Resh Lakish holds that future intent does not count and considers the offering still valid.
Art: Camille Pissarro : Flock of Sheep in a Field after the Harvest
What is the reason for this ruling – really, for the second part of it, since the first part was discussed on the previous page? Said the father of Shmuel, “And if from the flock is his offering for a peace offering to God.” This teaches that something that comes from the flock (Passover) can become a peace offering.
But maybe this is so only if it is brought as peace offering? How do we know this is true for other types of sacrifices? Said Rabbi Illa in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in the phrase “for a peace offering” the word “offering” is extra, and this teaches that the law applies to every type of sacrifice.
Art: Dieric the Elder Bouts - The Feast Of The Passover 1464-67
From where do we know this fact? From the phrase "Watch the month of spring and make a Passover offering" we derive that all actions of the Passover sacrifice should be done in the name of that sacrifice, and not any other one.
However, from this we only know that the change of the designation ruins the sacrifice. How do we know that if the priest erroneously intends that the sacrifice should belong to someone other than its true owner, that this too makes it invalid? Because of the phrase, "Say, this is the Passover sacrifice". This phase is extra and not needed to teach the previous prohibition, so we apply it to the change in ownership.
However, so far we only know the requirement not to change the designation or the ownership of the sacrifice. How do we know that if we do change it, this makes the sacrifice completely invalid? From the phrase, "Slaughter the sacrifice for the Lord your God", meaning, every action should be done as commanded.
Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Fishing In Spring
What happens when a Kohen slaughters a thanksgiving offering of one person for the sake of thanksgiving of his fellow? This does not mean that he wants the sacrifice of one to become the sacrifice of the other! That would a simple case of change in the ownership of the sacrifice, and it would not be credited to its owner. Rather, the Kohen meant that the offering of one owner should assume the sacred properties of another one, but still belong to the first owner.
Rabbah said that it is valid: all thanksgiving offerings are the same, even those of different people. Rav Chisda said that it is invalid: each person's thanks are different - for example, one may be thankful for successfully crossing the sea, while the other one – for being released from prison. This leads to a change in holiness, making the sacrifice not valid for its owner. The argument remains without a clear winner.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - Prison Scene
A question was asked, can it atone for those transgressions that happened after it was designated by the owner? Since it can atone for multiple prior violations, maybe it can also atone for future ones? Or should we compare it to the sin offering? The sin offering is brought for a specific occurrences of a violation, for example, for violating Shabbat by mistake. It cannot atone for multiple transgressions, and of course it cannot it atone for future ones. If the burnt offering is like the sin offering, then it cannot atone for what happened after it was designated.
The Talmud tries to prove that the burnt offering indeed atones for the future, by comparing it to various other slight offenses, but in each attempt there is possibly another mechanism of how the atonement for this offense works, so in the end the Talmud does not resolve the question.
Art: Lasar Segall - Praying Jew
He found the answer in the Torah phrase, "What emerges from your lips you shall observe and carry out, just as you vowed... a freewill offering." A freewill offering (nedavah) means that one promises to bring a sacrifice, but not a specific animal. On the other hand, a vow (“neder”) occurs when one points to an animal and promises to bring that specific animal.
Why does the Torah call it both a vow and a freewill offering? - To tell you that if you did as you vowed, and brought the offering for its sake, you have fulfilled your vow. But if you brought it not for its sake, then it becomes a freewill offering, additional to your vow; it is brought and is valid, but it does not fulfill your vow obligation.
Art: Benjamin Eugene Fichel - A Gentlemans Debate
How do we know it? The Torah said, “And if his slaughter is for the sake of peace offering.” You could argue and say that the Torah needs to specify that it is a peace offering, and not something else. To that the answer is that the Torah already called it a peace offering in “one carries the blood of the peace offering.” What does it teach then by saying “his slaughter is for the sake?” - that it needs to be for the sake of the specific offering.
The “for the sake” requirement for other services is derived from similar verses. There is also an analogous requirement “for the sake of the owner of the sacrifice.”
Art: Gustave Bauernfeind - At the Entrance to the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
On the other hand a Get, written not for the sake of one's wife, but for the sake of a different women (provided that they have the same names) is invalid. Even if it is written for the sake of an idolatress, to whom the laws of Jewish marriage do not apply, the Get is still invalid. Thus, in the case of Get the intent for something completely different does invalidate it. Why is this difference?
He answered that in the case of divorce, if one takes the idolatress out of the picture, this Get is not intended for his wife and is thus invalid, but with sacrifices, if you take the intent for non-sacrificial meat out of the picture, it becomes no intent at all, and such sacrifices are valid.
Art: Piero della Francesca - Portraits of Federico da Montefeltro and His Wife Battista Sforza
Exceptions to this rule are a Pesach sacrifice brought on Passover, and a sin-offering. These two, if slaughtered not for their own sake, are completely invalid.
Ravina said to Rav Pappa, “It's a pity that you were not within Shabbat boundary and could not come to us Friday night, for Rava asked a great question and resolved it.” What was it?
Rava found this contradiction: the sacrifice is not counted if slaughtered for a “wrong designation,” but if there is no designation, it is valid. A woman's Get, on the other hand, has to be written expressly for her, but if there is no designation, it is invalid. And he answered: a sacrifice, without a designation, is intended for its sake, but a woman, if not otherwise specified, will continue to be married, and does no intend to be divorced.
Art: Gerard Ter Borch - Woman Reading a Letter
Five things are conducive to retaining one's learning: eating wheat bread, eating lightly cooked eggs, regular consumption of olive oil, regular enjoyment of wine and aromatics spices, and drinking water left over from producing a dough.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted that the Prince (he occupied this position) should be given more honor than the President of Court (Rabbi Nathan) and than the leading Sage (Rabbi Meir). They wanted to overthrow him, and plotted to suddenly ask him to expound Ukzin, the hardest tractate of Mishna. A friend, however, warned him, so he studied all night and was able to expound on the next day. However, Rabban Gamliel forbade Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Nathan to enter the study hall, and they had to write their answers in a piece of paper and throw them inside. The Sages petitioned for them, and they were readmitted, but when their teachings are quoted, they are not mentioned by name, but as "others say."
Art: John Singer Sargent - Venetian Wineshop
End of Horayot
When a High Priest needs to observe mourning, he tears his garment from the bottom, and not from the top, like regular priests and laypeople do. He brings sacrifices even on the first day of mourning, just does not eat them, while regular priests do not bring sacrifices.
When one has any two mitzvot that he can perform, he should first do the one that is more frequent, and this is derived from the order of sacrifices in the Temple. If one mitzvah is more sacred than the other, it has to be done first. If the High Priest's bull and the assembly's bull, brought for a court's error, are both standing to be sacrificed, the High Priest's bull goes first – not based on the above rules, but because it is called “first” by the Torah.
If a man and a woman both need food or clothing, the woman takes precedence, because the man can go begging door to door. When both are held captive, the woman is ransomed first.
Art: Jean-Léon Gérôme - Old Clothing Merchant in Cairo
If one wants to undertake a business venture and wants to know if it will be successful or not, let him raise a rooster for the sake of that business venture and let him see: if the rooster grows plump and fine, it is a good omen that he will be successful.
If one wants to go out on the road and wants to know if he will return home safely or not, let him stand in a dark house. If he sees a shadow of his shadow, know that he will return home successfully.
And it is not a wise thing for one to do, for if the omen is negative, he may become distressed, and his luck might indeed take a turn for the worst. For this reason, the omens are formulated to consider only the good outcome.
Art: Ferdinand Loyen Du Puigaudeau - Chinese Shadows, the Rabbit
The difference between an anointed High Priest and one who was installed with additional garments is that only the anointed Priest brings a special bull sacrifice if he sins or the court errs.
If a High Priest becomes ritually impure or otherwise temporarily unfit for service, another High Priest is appointed in his stead. When the first one returns, he is called The Serving High Priest, and the temporary substitute gets the name of High Priest Who Passed out of Service. The Serving High Priest is higher in that he brings the bull of Yom Kippur and his daily flour offering. They are equally commanded to marry a virgin and cannot marry a widow. Both cannot observe mourning, and accidental murderers return from their exile on the death of both.
Art: James Jacques Joseph Tissot - A Widow
The High Priest is removed from his position if he develops a physical blemish that makes his service invalid. A leader is removed if he develops a sickness of tzaraat – spiritual leprosy – or if he is deposed.
Who is that leader that the Torah describes as “Prince, or Nasi,” to whom the above laws are applicable? That is the king, as the Torah describes him, “one who has no superior except God.”
The king is a servant of the people, as we see from the following story. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling together on a ship, Rabban Gamliel had bread, and Rabbi Yehoshua had bread and flour. When Rabban Gamliel ran out of bread, he was sustained by Rabbi Yehoshua's flour. Said he to Rabbi Yehoshua, “Why were you so provident?” Rabbi Yehoshua replied that there is a star that misleads sailors, and it shows once in 70 years. “If you are so smart,” - said Rabban Gamliel - “Why do you have to travel on business?” Rabbi Yehoshua replied, “Before you help me, help your two students, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan, who know how to count every drop in the sea, but don't have bread. Rabban Gamliel wanted to appoint them heads of Yeshiva, but they did not want to. So he told them, “Don't think that I am making you rulers, rather, I am making you servants.”
Art: Emil Carlsen - Moonlilt Seascape
If the transgression was that of idol worship, an individual, the leader, and the anointed priest bring a she-goat, whereas the court brings a bull and a he-goat. The bull as completely burned on the Altar, and the goat is a sin-offering, which is partially eaten by the priests.
If one violated a commandment, resulting in a guilt-offering, and furthermore if he is in doubt about this, both an and a leader of the community bring a “doubtful guilt-offering,” but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. Regarding a definite guilt-offering, an individual, the leader, and the priest are liable, but the court is exempt.
Art: Stefano Bruzzi - Mountain Goats
The court does not bring a bull sacrifice if they rule incorrectly about a purity aspect of the Temple service, since an individual brings a different sin offering for that. Rather, it should be an error leading to a regular sin-offering, for example, the positive commandment of husband and wife to abstain before the day of expected menses, and a negative commandment not to have relations with the wife who has not been to the mikvah.
Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Two Sisters II
If the High Priest, anointed for service with Temple oil, is himself a Sage and ruled that something normally forbidden on the pain of excision is allowed, and then, without realizing his mistake, performed the act, he brings a special sacrifice, the “Anointed Kohen's bull.” If he knowingly ruled incorrectly or knowingly performed the forbidden act, he does not bring this sacrifice. His law is thus similar to the court's ruling that it makes for the community.
If he ruled incorrectly together with the court and performed the act together with the congregation, he does not bring his special sacrifice but is atoned for by the communal “sacrifice of forgetfulness” bull. Just as the court is only liable if it negates a part of a commandment, but not the whole commandment, so too the High Priest.
Art: John Byam Liston Shaw - And Who Knoweth Whether He Shall Be A Wise Man Or A Fool
Incidentally, they were not all “burnt offerings,” rather, the goats were sin-offerings. If so, why are they called this? - because the goats were sin-offerings for idol worship, but like the burnt offering, they were not eaten by the priest.
According to Rabbi Yehudah, who says that if some of the tribes sinned, every tribe brings a goat, we understand twelve goats. According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that tribes do not “drag” each other into asking for forgiveness, eleven tribes sinned and brought eleven offerings, and the twelfth was brought by the court. But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that only the court brings the offering, why were twelve offerings required? Rabbi Meir answers that the court sinned, changed its mind, sinned again, changed its mind again, and so on, twelve times.
If, after the mistake of the court, one of the Jews dies, they still bring an offering – since the congregation never dies – but if one of the judges dies, they do not bring an offering.
Art: Jan Victors- Jacob Seeking Forgiveness of Esau
How many bulls are brought? There are multiple opinions about it: some say that the court brings the offering, and some – that the congregation of people does it. Furthermore, each tribe is called a congregation, so there are opinions that each tribe brings an offering, some tribes bring it, and even that all tribes bring it if one tribe sinned. Some opinions require the court of a single tribe to bring an offering, but the Sages say that liability exists only for the error of the Great Sanhedrin of seventy one, which was located on the Temple Mount, in the Chamber of Hewn Stones.
Art: Paulus Potter - Young Bull 1647
What happens if an individual did it because he has not heard that the court has retracted? Rabbi Shimon always exempts him. Rabbi Elazar says that his error is in doubt, and therefore he must bring a special guilt-offering. This applies when he stayed at home and could check on the court opinion before doing the act. If he went overseas, he is completely exempt.
The court needs to forget only part of the law, but not the complete law. For example, if they ruled that there is no Shabbat in the Torah, they are exempt from the bull offering, but if they said, “There is Shabbat in the Torah, but one is allowed to carry things from one's house into the street,” - then they are liable to a communal-error bull offering.
Art: Pierre-Auguste Renoir - Man Carrying a Boy
