meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Horayot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.txt"}
text: Mishnah Horayot
  משנה הוריות
  The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein
  
  
  Mishnah Horayot
  
  
  
  
  
  	If beth-din ruled to transgress one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah [If they said: You are permitted to do something, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth], and an individual went and transgressed unwittingly by their ruling, [(as opposed to an instance in which he did not transgress by the ruling of beth-din, as when beth-din ruled that chelev (forbidden fats) is permitted and he mistook chelev for shuman (permitted fats) and ate it, in which instance he is liable, not having eaten it by the ruling of beth-din)] — whether they transgressed and he transgressed with them or they did not transgress [by their ruling], he is exempt [and they are liable, for beth-din bring the offering only for unwittingness in ruling, the act being dependent on the congregation, and the ruling upon beth-din], (he is exempt) because he relied upon beth-din. [Our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Yehudah, who says: An individual who transgressed by the ruling of beth-din is exempt (from a sin-offering). The halachah, however, is in accordance with the Rabbis, who say that an individual who transgressed by the ruling of beth-din is liable. He is not exempt unless the transgressors are the majority of the dwellers of Eretz Yisrael or the majority of the tribes, in which instance beth-din bring a bullock of forgetfulness of the congregation and those who transgressed by their ruling are exempt.] If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and one of them knew that they were mistaken or if he were a Torah scholar eligible to rule and he went and transgressed by their ruling — whether they transgressed and he transgressed with them or they did not transgress and he transgressed, he is liable, because he did not rely upon beth-din (in transgressing). [And even though he sinned deliberately, knowing that beth-din had erred and, notwithstanding this, transgressed by their ruling, and a deliberate transgressor is not subject to an offering, the Gemara states that he is (considered) unwitting, having thought that it was a mitzvah to abide by beth-din's ruling, even though he knew that they had erred.] This is the rule: One who relies upon himself (in transgressing) is liable [to bring an offering (including one who "kicks" against the ruling (of beth-din), one whose way is not to act in accordance with their ruling, and who acted in accordance with their ruling, not because he relied upon their ruling but because it appeared to him that it was permitted, he is liable)]; one who relies upon (the ruling of) beth-din is exempt.
  	If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and they discovered that they had erred and retracted — whether they had brought their atonement or had not yet brought their atonement, and one went and transgressed by their (original) ruling — R. Shimon exempts him (from an offering) and R. Eliezer says: It is a safek (a doubt). [Since he should have asked all the time about news of the rulings in beth-din and did not do so, his case is similar to that of one who is in doubt as to whether he sinned or did not sin, in which instance he brings a suspended guilt-offering (asham talui). The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.] Which is the safek? [i.e., In which instance does R. Eliezer say that he is judged as one who is in doubt as to whether or not he sinned and is liable to bring an asham talui?] If he sat in his house, he is liable [i.e., if he sat in his house in the country in which beth-din ruled, in which instance he could have heard that beth-din had retracted.] But if he went abroad, he is exempt [not only if he actually went, but if he was on the way to go, even if he had not actually gone. R. Akiva said: I concede in this instance that he is close to being exempt from liability. Ben Azzai said to him: How is this different from sitting in one's house? [R. Akiva answered:] The one sitting in his house could have heard, but the other could not have heard. [R. Akiva holds that because of his preoccupation with going, he does not ask if beth-din had retracted, and he is exempt from an asham talvi. And Ben Azzai holds that since he had not yet gone, he should have asked. On this hinges the argument in the Gemara. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]
  	If beth-din ruled to uproot the entire body [i.e., all of the principles of the mitzvah] — if they said: There is no (institution of) niddah in the Torah, there is no Shabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry in the Torah, they are exempt (from an offering), [it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And there be hidden a thing" — Read it: "And there be hidden from a thing," part of the thing and not the whole thing.] If they ruled to nullify part and to fulfill part, they are liable (for an offering). How so? If they said: There is niddah in the Torah, but one who lives with a woman "who guards a day (of taharah [cleanliness] against a day of tumah [uncleanliness]" is not liable (to kareth). [(The Gemara asks: But guarding a day against a day is written in the Torah, viz. (Leviticus 15:22): "Then she shall count for herself," whence we learn that she counts one (day of taharah) against one (day of tumah), and for anything written in the Torah beth-din do not bring an offering! And the Gemara answers: We are speaking of an instance in which they said that zavah (a woman with a flow) obtains only in the daytime; that is, only when she sees blood in the daytime and not when she sees it at night, it being written (Ibid.) "all the days of her flow")]; (if they said:) there is Shabbath in the Torah, but one who carries from a private domain to a public domain is not liable [i.e., if they said: Bringing in and taking out is forbidden, it being written (Exodus 16:29): "Let no man go out of his place," but throwing and reaching out is permitted.)]; there is idolatry in the Torah, but bowing down is not liable, [i.e., if they said that bowing down where there is prostration of hands and feet is forbidden, it being written (Exodus 34:14): "You shall not bow down to another god," but where there is no prostration it is permitted], they are liable (for an offering), it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And there be hidden a thing" — a thing and not the whole body (of the mitzvah). [In sum: Beth-din is not liable until they rule (permitted) on a thing that the Sadducees do not concede (as being forbidden; but if they ruled (wrongly) on a thing that the Sadducees concede (as being forbidden), they are exempt from a congregational offering. And, as to the many who transgressed by their ruling, each one is liable to bring an offering for his unwittingness. Why so? For this is an instance of "Go and read it in the house of the master," (i.e., you should have known it.)]
  	If beth-din ruled, and one of them knew that they had erred, and he said to them "You are mistaken," or if the mufla of beth-din [the chief justice, the Rosh Yeshiva] were not there, or if one of them were a proselyte, or a mamzer (a bastard), or a Nathin (viz. Joshua 9:27), or an old man who had not seen children [(and who is not fit to judge capital cases, in all likelihood being a stranger to compassion)], they are exempt (from an offering), it being written here "congregation," viz. (Leviticus 4:13): "And if the whole congregation of Israel (the Sanhedrin) err," and, elsewhere, "congregation," viz. (Numbers 35:24): "Then the congregation shall judge." Just as with "congregation" written there, all of them must be fit to rule, [viz. (Ibid. 11:16): "And they (the judges) shall stand there with you (Moses)" ("with you":) — they must be like you), excluding a proselyte, a Nathin, and a mamzer, who are not fit to be appointed to the Sanhedrin], here, too, all of them must be fit to rule. If beth-din ruled unwittingly and all the congregation transgressed unwittingly, they bring a bullock. If deliberately, [i.e., if beth-din knew that it were forbidden] and they (the people) transgressed unwittingly, they (the people) bring a she-lamb and a she-goat. If (beth-din ruled) unwittingly, and they (the people) transgressed wittingly, both are exempt: beth-din, because the people did not transgress because of their ruling, not relying upon beth-din, knowing that they had erred; and the people who transgressed are exempt because they are witting, and all who are witting are not subject to an offering.]
  	If beth-din ruled and all or most of the congregation transgressed by their ruling, they [beth-din] bring a bullock, [viz. (Leviticus 4:14): "If the sin became known wherein they sinned, then the congregation shall offer a bullock"], and for idolatry they bring a bullock and a he-goat, [viz. (Numbers 15:22): "And if you err and not do all of these mitzvoth" — a mitzvah (i.e., a transgression) which is tantamount to all of these mitzvoth — idolatry. And it is written there (Ibid. 24): "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation (the Sanhedrin) it were done in error, then all the congregation shall offer one young bullock… and one kid of goats as a sin-offering."] These are the words of R. Meir, [R. Meir holding that Leviticus 4:19 refers to unwittingness in respect to the other transgressions, and here (Numbers 15:22), to unwittingness in respect to idolatry. The "congregation" that ruled alone [i.e., the Great Sanhedrin] brings them.] R. Yehudah says: Twelve tribes bring twelve bullocks, [R. Yehudah holding that each tribe is called a "congregation," viz. (II Chronicles 20:5): "And Yehoshafat stood in the congregation of Judah"], and for idolatry they bring twelve bullocks and twelve he-goats. R. Shimon says: Thirteen bullocks, and for idolatry, thirteen he-goats, a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe, and a bullock and a he-goat for beth-din, [R. Shimon holding that a beth-din that erred in its ruling is not atoned for by the bullocks and he-goats of the tribes, but must bring a bullock and a he-goat for themselves.] If beth-din ruled (wrongly) and seven tribes transgressed by their ruling [(seven being the majority of the tribes)] or the majority [of Israel, even if they come from the minority of the tribes, even if one tribe transgressed and they be the majority of Israel], they [all of the other tribes, who did not transgress along with these,] bring a bullock; and, for idolatry, a bullock and a he-goat. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Seven tribes who sinned bring seven bullocks and the other tribes, who did not sin bring a bullock (each) because of them. For these who did not sin bring because of those who did. R. Shimon says: "Eight bullocks, and, for idolatry, eight bullocks and eight he-goats, a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and a he-goat for beth-din, [R. Shimon holding that those who did not sin do not bring because of those who did. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If the beth-din of one of the tribes ruled (wrongly) and that tribe [itself, the majority of Israel,] transgressed by their ruling, that tribe is liable and all of the other tribes are exempt. The sages say: There is no liability except by the ruling of the Great Sanhedrin alone, it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And if the whole congregation of Israel err" — and not the congregation of that tribe. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]
  
  
  
  	If the anointed priest [i.e., If the high-priest, anointed with the anointing oil] unwittingly ruled for himself [that something was permitted] and transgressed [by himself] unwittingly [in a thing deliberate transgression of which is liable to kareth], he brings a bullock. (If he ruled) unwittingly and transgressed wittingly, or (ruled) wittingly and transgressed unwittingly, he is exempt. For the ruling of the anointed priest for himself is like the ruling of beth-din for the congregation.
  	If he ruled for himself and transgressed by himself, he receives atonement by himself, [i.e., he must bring a bullock by himself.] If he ruled with the congregation [If he were one of the Sanhedrin, who ruled unwittingly], and he transgressed with the congregation, he receives atonement with [the bullock of forgetfulness] of the congregation, [and he does not require another offering. For I might think that just as on Yom Kippur he does not receive atonement with the congregation, it being written (Leviticus 16:11): "And he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is his," here, too, he would need an offering of his own; we are, therefore, apprised that this is not so, deriving it from (Ibid. 4:3): "For his sin which he has sinned" — For the sin which is distinctive with him he brings an offering of his own, but for a sin which is not distinctive with him, he dos not bring an offering of his own. And it follows that the anointed priest should receive atonement with the congregation,[ for beth-din is not liable until it rules to nullify part and to fulfill part, and thus with the anointed priest, [whence it is seen that they equated the anointed priest with beth-din in all respects. Therefore, when he ruled with the congregation, it follows that he should be equated with the congregation and receive atonement with the congregation.] And they are not liable (to bring an offering) for idolatry until they rule to annul part and to fulfill part. [Because it is written in respect to the other mitzvoth (Leviticus 4:13): "and a thing be hid from the eyes of the congregation," and, in respect to idolatry (Numbers 15:24): "And it shall be, if by the eyes of the congregation, etc." — (we conclude:) Just as with other mitzvoth (an offering is brought) only if a thing were annulled and not the entire body (of the mitzvah), so, with idolatry, a "thing," and not the entire body.]
  	They are not liable unless there be forgetfulness of the thing and unwittingness in act [i.e., If beth-din ruled (wrongly) for the congregation in one of all of the mitzvoth, they are not liable for a bullock of forgetfulness of the congregation, unless there be forgetfulness of the thing (that is, if their ruling were mistaken and the halachah escaped them), together with unwittingness in act, i.e., if most of the congregation erred and transgressed by their ruling, it being written (Leviticus 4:13): "And if the whole congregation of Israel err and the thing be hid" — unwittingness in the act and forgetfulness of the thing (the halachah)]. And thus with the anointed priest. [He is not liable for an offering unless the din escaped him. And they are not liable unless there be forgetfulness of the thing together with unwittingness in act [as with all the other mitzvoth; for we derive idolatry from the other mitzvoth by identity "by the eyes" — "by the eyes," as written above.] Beth-din are not liable unless they rule (wrongly) on a thing whose witting transgression is punishable by kareth and whose unwitting transgression requires a sin-offering (except for five of them whose unwitting transgression does not require a sin-offering: circumcision and the Pesach offering — Because they are positive commandments, even though their witting transgression is punishable by kareth, their unwitting transgression does not require a sin-offering, in respect to which it is written (Leviticus 4:13) "one of all the mitzvoth of the Torah which are not to be done"; and blaspheming, because it does not involve an act and Scripture write of a sin-offering (Numbers 15:29): "for him who acts unwittingly" — excluding blaspheming, where there is no act. And for defiling the sanctuary and its holy things, unwitting transgression requires (not a sin-offering, but) a sliding-scale offering, as mentioned in Leviticus. For all of these, beth-din and the anointed priest do not bring a sin-offering for unwitting transgression. We find, then, all the mitzvoth for which beth-din and the anointed priest bring an offering to total thirty-one, witting transgression of which is punishable by kareth, and unwitting transgression requiring a fixed sin-offering.] And thus with the anointed priest. And they are not liable (to bring an offering) for idolatry until they rule on something whose witting transgression is punishable by kareth and whose unwitting transgression requires a sin-offering.
  	There is no liability (for a sin-offering) for a positive commandment and a negative commandment in the sanctuary. [If beth-din ruled and erred in the tumah of the sanctuary and its holy things they are not liable for a congregational offering. ("for a positive commandment"): as when one became tamei in the sanctuary, it being a mitzvah for him to leave by the short way, and he lingered and left by the long way, he incurs kareth. And if beth-din ruled for him to leave by the long way, they are not liable for an offering, for there is no sin-offering for this unwittingness; that is, if an individual transgressed this unwittingly and left by the long way, he is not liable for a sin-offering but for a sliding-scale offering. ("and a negative commandment":) not to enter the sanctuary in a state of tumah.] And a suspended guilt-offering is not brought for a positive commandment and a negative commandment in the sanctuary. [For, everything whose unwitting transgression requires a fixed sin-offering, requires for his unknowingness a suspended gilt-offering, and sanctuary uncleanliness, since its unwitting transgression does not require a sin-offering, his unknowingness does not require a suspended guilt-offering.] But there is liability for a positive commandment and a negative commandment in niddah [("for a positive commandment":) If a man were living with a clean woman, and she said to him "I have become unclean," now at the time of cohabitation, it is a mitzvah for him to separate. But he is not to separate immediately, for such separation is as pleasurable to him as cohabitation. But "he sticks his nails in the ground" and waits until the organ has "died" and separates without hardness. This is the "positive commandment" of niddah. And if beth-din erred in this ruling and ruled that he separate immediately, they are required to bring a bullock of forgetfulness, because an individual is required to bring a sin-offering for unwittingness.] Which is the positive commandment in niddah? Separate from the niddah. And which is the negative commandment? Do not cohabit with a niddah.
  	There is no liability for "hearing the voice" [i.e., for knowing testimony and not giving it, viz. (Leviticus 5:1): "And if a soul sin and hear the voice of an oath (i.e., if he were besworn to give testimony if he knows it), and he were a witness, having seen or known — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin."], and for "pronouncing with the lips" [(viz. Ibid. 4) If he took an oath that he would not eat and he did eat, or that he would eat and he did not eat; or that he had eaten and he had not eaten, or that he had not eaten and he had eaten]. And for defiling of the sanctuary and its holy things, [entering the sanctuary in a state of tumah or eating of the holy — if they erred in ruling in one of all these, they are not required to bring an offering, neither beth-din nor the anointed priest, because an individual is not required to bring a fixed sin-offering for unwittingness in them.], and the Nassi (i.e., the king,) like them. [If the king were unwitting in one or all of these, he does not bring a he-goat and he is exempt from any offering, for in respect to all of these it is written (Leviticus 5): "And if his hand does not attain, etc." — to exclude (from a sliding-scale offering) a king and a high-priest, who are never poor.] These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: The Nassi is liable for all (to bring a sliding-scale offering), [for in respect to the Nassi it is written (Ibid. 4:26, 5:10): "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him for his sin," and in respect to a sliding-scale offering in respect to "hearing of the voice" and "pronouncing with the lips" and defilement of the sanctuary, it is written "And the Cohein shall make atonement for his sin," to teach that the Nassi is liable for them. As to the anointed priest's being exempt from the offering indicated for "hearing of the voice" and "pronouncing with the lips" and defiling of the sanctuary according to R. Akiva, this is because it is written (Ibid. 6:13): "This is the offering of Aaron and his sons … the tenth part of an ephah" — "This" is a term of exclusion, i.e., the "tenth of an ephah" of the meal-offering of cakes is required for the anointed priest, and no other "tenth of an ephah" is required for him — except the tenth of an ephah mentioned in respect to "hearing the voice," etc., which the anointed priest does not bring. And since Scripture excluded him from the tenth of an ephah, it excluded him also from the two turtle-doves and from all the offerings mentioned there, the section ending (Ibid. 5:13): "And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned with one of these" — one who gains atonement with one of these gains atonement with all, and one who does not gain atonement with one of these does not gain atonement with all. The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Akiva nor with R. Yossi, but the anointed priest and the Nassi are required to bring a sliding-scale offering for "hearing the voice" and "pronouncing with the lips" and defiling the sanctuary, as indicated later in our Mishnah. As to it being stated "They are not liable for 'hearing the voice,'" which implies neither the beth-din nor the anointed priest, the meaning is that they are not required to bring the bullock which is brought for the other mitzvoth, but they are required to bring the sliding-scale offering.], except for "hearing the voice." For a king does not judge and is not judged; he does not testify and is not testified against.
  	For all the mitzvoth in the Torah whose witting transgression is punishable by kareth and whose unwitting transgression requires a sin-offering, the individual brings a she-lamb and a she-goat; the Nassi, a he-goat, and the anointed priest and beth-din, a bullock. And, for idolatry, the individual, the Nassi and the anointed priest bring a she-goat, [it being written (Numbers 15:27): "And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error, he shall bring a she-goat," after which it is written (29): "One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly" — all of them are equated for this offering.]; and beth-din bring a bullock and a he-goat, a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.
  	Asham talui (a suspended guilt-offering) [Transgressions which, if committed wittingly, are punishable by kareth, and, if unwittingly, require a fixed sin-offering, require for unknowingness an asham talui, e.g., (if there were) two olive-sizes, one of forbidden fats and one of permitted fats, and he ate one of them, but he does not know which one] — the individual and the Nassi are liable, and the anointed priest and beth-din are exempt, [it being written in respect to a congregational offering (Leviticus 4:14): "If the sin became known … then the congregation shall offer, etc." — they require an offering only for knowingness (and the anointed priest is like beth-din)]. A certain guilt-offering [(There are five guilt-offerings, which are offered for certain transgression: asham me'iloth for abuse of sacred property; asham gezeiloth for abuse of private property; asham nazir for interrupting the period of Nazaritism; asham metzora, the guilt-offering of a leper; asham shifchah charufah for living with a maidservant betrothed to another man] — the individual and the Nassi and the anointed priest are liable; [for all of these pertain to the individual, whether a plain person, an anointed priest, or a Nassi], and beth-din are exempt [for these have nothing to do with the ruling of beth-din, and there is no asham for the ruling of beth-din.] For "hearing the voice," "pronouncing with the lips" and defiling the sanctuary and its holy things, beth-din are exempt, and the individual, and the Nassi and the anointed priest are liable; but the anointed priest is not liable for defiling the sanctuary and its holy things. These are the words of R. Shimon. [The rationale of R. Shimon: It is written in respect to the defiling of the sanctuary (Numbers 19:20): "And a man, if he becomes unclean and does not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the congregation" — he whose sin is equivalent to that of the congregation, excluding the high-priest, whose sin is not equivalent to that of the congregation. For, as to the congregation, whoever of them enters the sanctuary unwittingly or transgresses unwittingly is liable for unwittingness of act alone whereas the anointed priest is liable only for forgetfulness of the (forbidden) thing together with unwittingness of act, as stated above in our chapter.] These are the words of R. Shimon [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon, but a high-priest also brings a sliding-scale offering for defiling the sanctuary and its holy things.] And what offering do they bring? A sliding-scale offering. R. Eliezer says: The Nassi brings a he-goat for defiling the sanctuary and its holy things, because they are liable to kareth for witting transgression, just as he brings a he-goat for other mitzvoth which are liable to kareth for witting transgression. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer, for since they are not liable to bring a fixed sin-offering for unwitting defilement of the sanctuary and its holy things, the Nassi brings only what the individual brings.]
  
  
  
  	If the anointed priest sinned (in his ruling) and was afterwards deposed from his (high-) priesthood [and he was not able to bring his offering until after he had been deposed]; and, similarly, if the Nassi sinned and was afterwards deposed from his kingship — the anointed priest brings a bullock [(It is stated later in our Mishnah that even if he sinned after he had been deposed he brings a bullock. But because it was necessary to teach that the Nassi brings a he-goat before he was deposed, it was also taught that the high-priest brings a bullock], and the Nassi brings a he-goat, [it being written (Leviticus 4:28): "for his sin which he has sinned" — he brings a sin-offering as he did when he sinned.]
  	If the anointed priest was deposed from his (high-) priesthood and then he sinned; and, similarly, if a king was deposed from his kingship and then he sinned — the anointed priest brings a bullock [Even though he does not officiate he remains in his sanctity; for there is no difference between an officiating (high-) priest and a deposed (high-priest) but the (Yom Kippur) service and the Yom Kippur bullock and the tenth of the ephah, that is offered each day (as stated below), but a Nassi, once he has been deposed, is considered a commoner], and the Nassi is like a commoner.
  	If they sinned before they were appointed, and then they were appointed, they are like commoners, [it being written about a Nassi (Leviticus 4:22): "If a Nassi sin" — if he sins when he is a Nassi; and so, with the anointed priest, viz. (Ibid. 3): "If the anointed priest sin" — if he sins after he is anointed.] R. Shimon says: If they were  apprised (that they had sinned) before they were appointed, they are liable; if they were apprised after they were appointed, they are exempt. And who is the "Nassi" — the king, it being written (Ibid.): "And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L rd his G d" — a nassi who has over him only the L rd his G d (i.e., a king).
  	Who is "the anointed one"? He who is anointed with the anointing oil, not him of the many garments. [After the flask of anointing oil was secreted, the high-priest would enter the high-priesthood by donning eight garments, viz. (Leviticus 21:10): "…and who has been invested to wear the garments."] There is no difference between the anointed (high-) priest and the many-garmented priest but the bullock that is offered for all of the mitzvoth, [the many-garmented priest not offering a bullock for his unwitting sins, it being written (in that regard) "the anointed priest." And there is no difference between the officiating (high-priest) and the deposed (high-priest) but the Yom Kippur bullock and the tenth of the ephah, (which are offered only by the officiating high-priest). And both are equal in the Yom Kippur service. [The service of the day is kasher only with the high-priest alone, and the officiating high-priest and the deposed high-priest are equal in that regard.] And they are both commanded (to wed only) a virgin, and they are forbidden (to wed) a widow, and they are not permitted to make themselves tamei for their (deceased) kin, and they are not permitted to let their hair grow long or to rend their clothing, [it being written in respect to the high-priest (Ibid.): "His hair he shall not grow long and his clothing he shall not rend."], and they return the (unwitting) slayer. [If one of them dies, the slayer returns from his city of refuge, as it is written (Numbers 35:25): "until the death of the high-priest."]
  	The high-priest rends from below [At the death of one of his kin for whom he is commanded to rend, he rends below at the corner of his garment near his feet. (As to "and his clothing he shall not rend," the meaning is that he shall not rend them as others do)], and the common priest, from above [near the chest, close to the shoulder, as others do.] A high-priest may sacrifice when he is an onein (mourner), but he may not eat. [If someone, one of whose seven close kin whom he is commanded to mourn for, dies, then for the entire day of death, whether or not he were buried, he is an "onein" according to the Torah. And from the day of death onward, so long as he has not been buried he is an onein all of that day according to the Rabbis, even after burial. And if he were buried on the day of his death, then all of the following night he is an onein according to the Rabbis. And a high-priest who is an onein may sacrifice but not eat [of the sacrifices], and a common priest may neither sacrifice nor eat. [For thus do we find with Aaron, that on the day Nadav and Avihu (his sons) died, he said (Leviticus 10:19): "And had I eaten the sin-offering this day, would it be good in the eyes of the L rd?" — the concern is only with the eating, not with the sacrificing. And this, only with Aaron, who was a high-priest; but his sons, who were common priests, were forbidden both to eat and to sacrifice on that day.]
  	What is more frequent than its neighbor precedes its neighbor, [it being written (Numbers 28:29): "aside from the morning burnt-offering of the daily burnt-offering." If it is written "the morning burnt-offering," why is it necessary to state "of the daily burnt-offering"? But the Torah hereby teaches us that whatever is more frequent takes precedence], and whoever is more sanctified than his neighbor precedes his neighbor. [For thus do we find with a Cohein, of whom it is written (Leviticus 21:8): "And you shall sanctify him," and we say: (It is for the Cohein) to open (the Torah blessings) first, and to bless (grace) first, and to take a choice portion first.] If the bullock of (atonement for) the anointed priest and the bullock of (atonement for) the congregation are waiting (to be sacrificed), the bullock of the anointed priest takes precedence to the bullock of the congregation in all of its procedures. [Since the Cohein "atones for" and the congregation is "atoned for" it stands to reason that the "atoner for" should take precedence to the atoned for, and thus is it written (Ibid. 16:17): "and he shall make atonement for himself, and for his household, and for the entire congregation of Israel."]
  	A man takes precedence to a woman for (saving of) life and for returning of lost objects, [a man being more sanctified than a woman, being commanded in all of the mitzvoth, while a woman is not commanded in time-oriented positive commandments], and a woman takes precedence to a man for clothing, [her shame being greater than that of a man], and for rescue from captivity. When they are both liable to (sexual) abuse [(rape or sodomy, respectively)], a man takes precedence (for rescue) to a woman, [the act being "natural" for a woman but unnatural for a man].
  	A Cohein takes precedence to a Levite; a Levite, to an Israelite, [viz. (Deuteronomy 10:8): "At that time the L rd set apart the tribe of Levi, etc."]; an Israelite to a mamzer, [the first being "pedigreed," the second not]; a mamzer to a Nathin, [the first coming from an untainted drop; the second, from a tainted one]; a Nathin to a proselyte, [the first having been raised with us in holiness; the second not]; a proselyte to a freed slave, [the first not having been subsumed in "accursed," the second having been subsumed thus]. When is this so? When they are all equal (in eminence); but, as between a mamzer who is a Torah scholar and a high-priest who is an ignoramus, a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence to a high-priest who is an ignoramus, [as it is written (Proverbs 3:15): "It [Torah] is more precious than peninim (precious gems") — even (more precious) than (the high-priest), who enters lifnai velifnim, (acronymic of "peninim"), "the innermost sanctum."]