Parallel
יומא 73
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
therefore the text reads: Seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead put them on, even he who cometh into the tent of meeting [etc.], i.e., he who is worthy of entering the tent of meeting. Now if this were the case, then he too would be fit [to enter the tent of meeting]? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: This is what it means: Whosoever was mainly anointed for the [purpose of] the tent of meeting, that excludes him who was anointed mainly for Battle. The following objection was raised: The Anointed for Battle officiates neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight like a high priest? — Abaye said: Would you render him then a common man? Rather: Neither like a high priest, for the sake of preventing ill-feeling; nor like a common priest, because one promotes to a higher degree of sanctity, but one must not degrade’. R. Adda b. Ahabah said to Raba: But there is a Tanna who pays no attention to the prevention of ill-feeling, yet according to him, he does not officiate? For it was taught: In the following points a high priest differs from a common priest: the bullock of the priest anointed; and the bullock due in case of [unwitting] transgression of any commandment; the bullock of the Day of Atonement; the tenth of the ephah; he does not unbind his hair, nor rend his clothes. But he [the high priest] tears his garments from below, and the common priest tears his from above; he must not defile himself for his [deceased] relatives; he is under obligation to marry only a virgin; is prohibited from marrying a widow; causes the slayer to return; as onen [mourner] he may offer up a sacrifice but may not eat or take a share thereof; he receives his portion first and takes first part in the offering [of the sacrifice]; he officiates in eight garments; is exempt [from a sacrifice] for [an unwitting transgression of] defilement relating to the Sanctuary and its hallowed thing, and the whole service of the Day of Atonement is legitimate only when performed by him. All these [laws] apply also to priests consecrated by a larger number of official garments, with the exception of the bullock to be offered up for the transgression of any commandment. All these apply to the high priest who has passed from his high priesthood, with the exception of the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the tenth of the ephah. All these things do not apply to the priest Anointed for Battle, with the exception of five matters mentioned in that portion of the section: he does not unbind his hair, nor rend his clothes; nor defile himself with any [deceased] relative; is obliged to marry a virgin; forbidden to marry a widow; and causes the slayer to return-according to R. Judah; whereas, according to the Sages, he does not cause him to return. Whence does he [the Tanna] consider [the question of] enmity [to arise]? Only with regard to one of similar rank. But with one of inferior rank he does consider it. R. Abbahu was sitting and reporting this teaching in the name of R. Johanan, whereupon R. Ammi and R. Assi averted their faces. (Some say it was R. Hiyya b. Abba who reported this teaching, whereupon R. Ammi and R. Assi averted their faces). To this R. Papa demurred: Granted [that they could not say anything against] R. Abbahu, because of the high regard the Imperial house had for him, but as for R. Hiyya b. Abba, they should have told him explicitly that R. Johanan had not said so! When Rabin came, he said: This was stated with reference to the time when he is consulted. Thus also was it taught: The garments which the high priest wears when he officiates the Anointed for Battle wears when he is consulted. Our Rabbis taught: How were [the Urim and Thummim] inquired of? — The inquirer had his face directed to him who was consulted, and the latter directed himself to the Divine Presence. The inquirer said: Shall I pursue after this troop? He who was consulted answered: ‘Thus saith the Lord: Go up and succeed’! R. Judah said: He need not say, ‘This saith the Lord’ but only ‘Go up and succeed’ — One does not inquire in a loud voice, as it is said: Who shall inquire for him; neither shall one but think thereof in one's heart, as it is said: ‘Who shall inquire for him’; but rather in the manner in which Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is said: Now Hannah, she spoke in her heart. One should not put two questions at the same time; if one has done so, only one [question] is answered; and only the first [question] is answered, as it is said: Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? Will Saul come down, etc. . . . and the Lord said.’ He will come down. But you said: Only the first [question] is answered? — David had asked
—
in wrong order and received his answer in right order. And as soon as he knew that he had asked in wrong order, he asked again in right order, as it is said: Will the men of Keilah deliver up me and my men in to the hand of Saul? And the Lord said.’ They will deliver thee up. But if the occasion required both questions, both were answered, as it is said: And David inquired of the Lord, saying: Shall I pursue after this troop? Shall I overtake them? And He answered him: pursue; for thou shalt surely overtake them and shalt without fail recover all. And although the decree of a prophet could be revoked, the decree of the ‘Urim and Thummim’ could not be revoked, as it is said: By the judgment of the Urim. Why were they called ‘Urim and Thummim’? ‘Urim’ because they made their words enlightening. ‘Thummim’ because they fulfil their words. And if you should ask: Why did they not fulfil their words in Gibeah Benjamin? It is because they did not inquire [whether the result would be] victory or defeat. But at last, when conquered, they [the Urim and Thummim] approved their action, as it is said: And Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, stood before it in those days, saying: ‘Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease?’ and the Lord said: Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into thy hand. How was it effected? — R. Johanan said: [The letters] stood forth. Resh Lakish said: They joined each other. But the ‘Zade’ was missing? R. Samuel b. Isaac said: They contained also the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the ‘Teth’, too, was missing? — R. Aha b. Jacob said: They contained also the words: The ‘tribes’ of Jeshurun. An objection was raised: No priest was inquired of who does not speak by means of the Holy Spirit and upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, for Zadok inquired and succeeded, whilst Abiathar inquired and failed, as it is said: But Abiathar went up until all the people had done passing out of the city? — He helped along. AND ONE INQUIRED ONLY FOR A KING. Whence do we know these things? — R. Abbahu said: Scripture said, And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim; ‘he’ i.e., the king, ‘and all the children of Israel with him’, i.e., the [priest] Anointed for Battle, ‘even all the congregation’, that is the Sanhedrin. MISHNAH. ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO EAT, TO DRINK, TO WASH, TO ANOINT ONESELF, TO PUT ON SANDALS, OR TO HAVE MARITAL INTERCOURSE. A KING OR BRIDE MAY WASH THE FACE, AND A WOMAN AFTER CHILDBIRTH MAY PUT ON SANDALS. THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ELIEZER. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, FORBID IT. IF ONE EATS THE BULK OF A LARGE DATE, THE LIKE THEREOF, WITH ITS STONE INCLUDED, OR IF HE DRANK A MOUTHFUL, HE IS CULPABLE. ANY FOODS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER IN MAKING UP THE BULK OF A DATE, AND ALL THE LIQUIDS COMPLEMENT ONE ANOTHER IN MAKING UP A MOUTHFUL, BUT WHAT A MAN EATS AND DRINKS DOES NOT GO TOGETHER. GEMARA. [Merely] FORBIDDEN? But surely punished with extirpation? — R. Ela, or as some say, R. Jeremiah, said: This refers only to less than the legal quantity. That will be right according to the view that even less than legal quantity is for — bidden by the law of the Torah, but what can be said according to the view that less than the legal quantity is permitted by the law of the Torah? For it was said: As for less than the legal quantity, R. Johanan holds it forbidden by the law of the Torah, but Resh Lakish considers it permitted by the law of the Torah. Now [the above answer] would be right according to R. Johanan, but what can be said according to Resh Lakish? — Resh Lakish would agree that [less than the legal quantity] is forbidden by [decree of] the Rabbis. If that be the case, one should not be liable on account thereof to offer a sacrifice for an oath, why then did we learn: [If one had sworn] an oath not to eat carrion, trefah things, abominable or creeping things, and then had eaten thereof, he is culpable? R. Simeon holds him not culpable. And we raised the point in connection therewith: Why should he be culpable? Surely he stands committed to the oath from Mount Sinai on! [And] Rab, Samuel and R. Johanan [in reply] said [it is a case] when he includes things permitted in the oath touching foods forbidden, whereas Resh Lakish said: This cannot be explained except where he either expressly refers to less than the legal quantity, and that in accord with the view of the Sages, or that he made a general statement
—