Yerushalmi Megillah 1:10 ירושלמי מגילה א׳:י׳

MISHNAH: The only difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one invested⁴⁰⁹The making of the anointing oil is described in Ex. 30:22–33 as a personal obligation of Moses. It cannot be duplicated by any other person. Therefore only the High Priests of the Tabernacle, of Siloh, and the First Temple could be anointed for their duties. The High Priests of the Second Temple were invested with the vestments of their office but could not be anointed. The special purification offering of the High Priest of a bull described in Lev. 4:3–12 is restricted to the “anointed priest”. The purification offering of a High Priest of the Second Temple period was that of common people, a female goat or sheep; Lev. 4:27–35. is the bull which comes for all commandments. The only difference between an acting High Priest and a deactivated High Priest⁴¹⁰Removed by a king of the Herodian dynasty or a Roman procurator. is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of an Epha⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest..

HALAKHAH: ⁴¹¹The entire Halakhah is also in Horaiot3:3 (Notes 132–188). The copy of the first paragraph in Horaiot is incomplete; the later paragraphs are also in Yoma1:1 (Notes 123–149). 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, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull⁴¹²The 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 Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb⁴¹³Tosephta Horaiot 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, anointed⁴¹⁴The 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 war⁴¹⁵The 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).. The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here⁴¹⁶Lev. 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 garb⁴¹⁷Mishnah Horaiot 3:4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of an ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].. But here⁴¹⁸In 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 garb⁴¹⁹Aaron 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 goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,]⁴²⁰Unnecessary corrector’s addition. this refers to the king⁴²¹Since Cohen may simply mean “public servant” (2S. 8:18).. If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king⁴²²Which is only the third in the Chapter., I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat⁴²³As explained in Horaiot2:3, 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 animal 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 mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and offered his tenth of an ephah it is valid⁴²⁴This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that the only difference between acting and emeritus High Priests are the High Priest’s bull on the Day of Atonement and the daily flour offering of a tenth of an ephah. It is now stated that if the ex-High Priest, who, as will be explained later in the Halakhah, should be unfit to serve as High Priest and is barred from serving as common priest, nevertheless acts as High Priest, the offering is legitimate..

⁴²⁵Here starts the parallel in Yoma 1:1.“One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen.⁴²⁶Mishnah Yoma1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him⁴²⁷Lev. 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.. One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry⁴²⁸He 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..

If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest⁴²⁹As the Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim3:3, Note 57; Yoma3:8 Note 201, Ševuot 1:8 Note 169). 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.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid⁴³⁰A doubt about the legitimacy of officiating in the Temple does not invalidate the offering (Terumot 8:1, Note 26).. Whose officiating? ⁴³¹The case is told not only in the two parallels in Horaiot and Yoma, but also in abbreviated form in the Babli, Yoma 12b where, however, the ruling is not the king’s (necessarily of the Herodian dynasty) but “the rabbis’.” There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Yerushalmi version. Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement⁴³²The High Priest is taken to live in the Temple, and therefore deprived of sexual activity, for seven days preceding the Day of Atonement. In the night of the Day of Atonement he is deprived of sleep (Yoma Mishnah 1:7) to avoid the danger of him having an involuntary emission. If he has one anyhow, he is disqualified for the entire day even if he immediately purifies himself in a miqweh since the disqualification by temporary impurity is not removed by the removal of the impurity until the following sundown (Lev. 22:7; cf. Ma`aser Šeni 3:2, Notes 21–22.); Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He asked the king when he went out: “The bull and the goat which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From mine or from the High Priest’s?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “Ben Illem, is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created? It is enough for you.” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

⁴³³In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Babli, Yoma 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/2⁴ Note 19/II. Josephus transcribes בֶּן קִמְחִית as τοῡ Καμύδου. It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with an Arab king [on the evening before the Day of Atonement at sundown]⁴³⁴The different versions of this text are discussed in Horaiot, Note 157. Probably it should read “with the king at sundown before the Day of Atonement.” If the Arab was not converted to Judaism, the High Priest would have had to leave the holy precinct on the Day of Atonement, a most unlikely happening before he had finished all his duties.
The version of the text presupposes that the king had immersed himself in a miqweh so he could enter the restricted area on the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, (Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:7) “The garments of the vulgar are severely impure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are severely impure for those eating heave; the garments of those eating heave are severely impure for those sacrificing.” The severe impurity of מִדְרָס referred to here is the impurity of seats or beds used by a sufferer from gonorrhea or a menstruating woman, which makes anyone touching it impure and requires immersion in water and waiting until sundown. Since the king could not sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, he could not have immersed himself with an intention which would make him co-pure with the High Priest. Since the incident happened at sundown, the High Priest was automatically disqualified for the next 24 hours.
While a living Gentile is not under the rules of biblical impurity, rabbinically every Gentile is impure and this impurity cannot be removed by immersion in water (Babli Avodah zarah 36b). and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. Their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests on the same day. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests⁴³⁵Under the Herodian kings, when the High Priesthood was conferred and removed at the whim of the king.. The Sages sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt⁴³⁶It is indecent for a married woman to be seen in public with uncovered hair. She was clothed at home as she was for the street and never undressed except in the dark. The Babli notes that many women follow this custom.. They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour⁴³⁷A pun on the name of Qimḥit “flour lady”.. They recited about her⁴³⁸Ps. 45:14.: All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments⁴³⁹According to Rashi’s commentary in Yoma, the argument means that the reward of a woman who behaves with dignity in her home is that her son will be High Priest whose garment is adorned with golden settings for precious stones. (Cf. Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 6, Bemidbar 3.).

I could think that the one anointed for war⁴¹⁵The 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 bring his tenth of an ephah⁴¹⁶Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest.. [The verse says⁴⁴⁰Ex. 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 Yoma72b/73a., in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says⁴⁴⁰Ex. 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 Yoma72b/73a., seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war 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 Priest⁴⁴¹Since 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,] ⁴⁴²1Chr. 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 needle⁴⁴³Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose⁴⁴⁴R. 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.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri⁴⁴⁵Num. 27:1–15., he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea⁴⁴⁶Jud. 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.

And from where that he was asked in eight⁴⁴⁷The 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.? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead⁴⁴⁰Ex. 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 Yoma72b/73a.. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him⁴⁴⁸Also for a secondary greatness.. And from where that he officiated in eight⁴⁴⁹This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest’s garb, “one increases in sanctity but does not decrease” (cf. Note 429). The opposing opinion disqualifies the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary.? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him⁴⁵⁰The name of R. Jonah’s interlocutor is not given; it is presumed to be his colleague R. Yose. He notes that R. Immi’s statement was identical to that of of R. Ḥiyya. In the Babli, Yoma 73a, the students of R. Joḥanan already point out that R. Joḥanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating., I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest⁴⁴⁹This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest’s garb, “one increases in sanctity but does not decrease” (cf. Note 429). The opposing opinion disqualifies the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary.. Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight⁴⁵²He holds that as a matter of principle, the Anointed for War could use the eight garments of the High Priest strictly for his duties outside the sanctuary and still be a common priest inside without violating the principle of Note 429. The Babli disagrees (Yoma73a) and bases the rule strictly on that principle. In contrast to the Babli, this would be strictly a rabbinic rule, not based on biblical principles, and therefore not a historical reconstruction by a new rule for the days of the Messiah.. Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets⁴⁵³Num. 10:8., blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons⁴⁵⁴His oath formula, cursing himself if his statement should be found false. Babli Šabbat17a. if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly⁴⁵⁵The 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).; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices⁴⁵⁶Num. 10:10; cf. Sanhedrin3:3 Note 155.. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life⁴⁵⁷A similar text in Sifry Num.75 (a better text Yalqut #725)..

The priest shall atone who was anointed⁴⁵⁸Lev. 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.. Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest⁴⁵⁹The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively.? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed⁴⁶⁰In 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.? The verse says, the priest shall atone⁴⁶¹Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.. How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth⁴⁶²It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot Yoma 12b s, v. כהן).. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court.⁴⁶³Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.”