Yoma 73a

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שִׁבְעַת יָמִים יִלְבָּשָׁם הַכֹּהֵן תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, מִי שֶׁרָאוּי לָבֹא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. וְאִם אִיתָא — מִיחְזֵא חֲזֵי!

therefore, the verse states: “Seven days shall he wear them, the one who serves in his stead from among his sons, who comes into the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 29:30). The verse describes a son serving in the place of his father, indicating that the position is inherited. The conclusion of the verse implies that the rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies only to a High Priest who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting, but not to the priest anointed for war. Based on this baraita , the following challenge is posed: And if it is so, since the priest anointed for war also serves wearing the same garments as the High Priest, he is also fit to enter the Tent of Meeting and should bequeath his position to his son.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל שֶׁעִיקַּר מְשִׁיחָתוֹ לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁעִיקַּר מְשִׁיחָתוֹ לְמִלְחָמָה.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what the baraita is saying: The rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies to anyone for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is to come and serve in the Tent of Meeting. That excludes this priest for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is for war.

מֵיתִיבִי: מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה אֵינוֹ מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לֹא בְּאַרְבָּעָה כְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, לֹא בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Dimi’s claim: It was taught in a baraita that the priest anointed for war serves neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight garments, like a High Priest.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא זָר מְשַׁוֵּית לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא: כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה, כְּכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין.

Abaye said to him: Would you make him like a non-priest? If he dresses like neither a High Priest nor a common priest, then effectively he is like a non-priest, but that is certainly not true. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is that the priest anointed for war does not dress like a High Priest due to the animosity that could be caused between him and the High Priest if they both wore similar garments. Therefore, although according to Torah law the priest anointed for war should dress like a High Priest, the Sages decreed that he should not, out of concern that animosity might result. And he does not dress like a common priest, due to the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the priest anointed for war attained the level of sanctity of a High Priest, he may not now be demoted to serve as an ordinary priest and dress accordingly.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא לְרָבָא: וְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֵיבָה, וְלָא קָא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ.

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But there is this tanna of the following baraita who does not accept the concern of animosity as a reason to prevent one from wearing similar garments, and yet even according to him the priest anointed for war does not serve wearing the eight garments. Clearly, there must be a different reason.

דְּתַנְיָא, דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט: פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּפַר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.

As it was taught in a baraita : The matters in which there are differences between a High Priest and a common priest are as follows: The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally; And the bull of Yom Kippur; And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day. Only the High Priest brings the above offerings.

לֹא פּוֹרֵעַ, וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, אֲבָל פּוֹרֵם הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבָיו, וּמְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הָאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ.

In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner. And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may. And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee. And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק, וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמֹנָה כֵּלִים, וּפָטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, וְכׇל עֲבוֹדוֹת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָן כְּשֵׁירוֹת אֶלָּא בּוֹ.

And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them. And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice. And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants. And he serves wearing eight garments. And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects. And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him.

וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגוֹת בִּמְרוּבֵּה בְּגָדִים, חוּץ מִפַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת.

And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil.

וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגוֹת בְּמָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר, חוּץ מִפַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.

And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day.

וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגוֹת בִּמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה: לֹא פּוֹרֵעַ, וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, וְלֹא מִטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבָיו, וּמְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הָאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחְזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר.

And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10–15): When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do. And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives. And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow. And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result.

כִּי לֵית לֵיהּ אֵיבָה — בְּדִכְווֹתֵיהּ, בִּדְזוּטַר מִינֵּיהּ — אִית לֵיהּ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity.

יְתֵיב רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי לְאַפַּיְיהוּ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אֲמַרָה, וְאַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי לְאַפַּיְיהוּ.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not Rabbi Abbahu but Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ — מִשּׁוּם יְקָרָא דְבֵי קֵיסָר, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא — נֵימְרוּ לֵיהּ מֵימָר: לָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי.

Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha , it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see Ḥagiga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: נִשְׁאַל אִיתְּמַר. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בְּגָדִים שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן — מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה נִשְׁאָל בָּהֶן.

The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim . To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita : The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim .

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד שׁוֹאֲלִין? הַשּׁוֹאֵל פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי נִשְׁאָל, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי שְׁכִינָה.

§ The Sages taught: How does one consult the Urim VeTummim ? The one asking stands with his face toward the one who is asked, i.e., the High Priest or the priest anointed for war. And the one who is asked, the High Priest, turns his face toward the Divine Presence, i.e., the Urim VeTummim , in which the explicit name of God is found, by tilting his head downward toward it.

הַשּׁוֹאֵל אוֹמֵר: ״אֶרְדּוֹף אַחֲרֵי הַגְּדוּד הַזֶּה״, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל אוֹמֵר: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ עֲלֵה וְהַצְלַח״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳״, אֶלָּא ״עֲלֵה וְהַצְלַח״.

The one who asks says his question, e.g.: “Shall I pursue after this troop?” (I Samuel 30:8). And the one who is asked answers him according to the response he receives and says, for example: Thus says God: Go up and succeed. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need not say the words: Thus says God; rather, it is sufficient to relay the content of the response and say: Go up and succeed, since he is obviously only repeating what he was told.

אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בְּקוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁאַל לוֹ״. לֹא מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁאַל לוֹ לִפְנֵי ה׳״, אֶלָּא כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאָמְרָה חַנָּה בִּתְפִלָּתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחַנָּה הִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת עַל לִבָּהּ״.

One does not ask in a loud voice, as it is stated: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim ” (Numbers 27:21), which implies that the inquiry is to be audible only to the person asking. And he should not think his question in his heart but should enunciate it, as it is stated: “And…who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God” (Numbers 27:21), and immediately afterward it states: “By his mouth” (Numbers 27:21). Rather, how shall he inquire? He should do so akin to the way that Hannah spoke in her prayer, as it is stated: “Now Hannah spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice could not be heard” (I Samuel 1:13), which indicates she did enunciate the words but spoke so quietly that no one else could hear.

אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים כְּאֶחָד. וְאִם שָׁאַל — אֵין מַחְזִירִין אֶלָּא אֶחָד, וְאֵין מַחְזִירִין לוֹ אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲיַסְגִּירוּנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ הֲיֵרֵד שָׁאוּל וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ יֵרֵד״. וְהָא אָמְרַתְּ אֵין מַחְזִירִין אֶלָּא רִאשׁוֹן! דָּוִד שָׁאַל

One does not ask about two matters simultaneously; rather, one asks one question, and after he is answered he asks a second question. And even if he asks about two matters simultaneously, he is answered only with regard to one of them, and he is answered only with regard to the first question. As it is stated with regard to King David that he asked two questions simultaneously: “Will the men of Keilah deliver me into his hand? Will Saul come down?” (I Samuel 23:11). And he was answered with regard to only one: “And God said: He will come down.” (I Samuel 23:11). The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that if one asks two questions, he is answered only with regard to the first question? Yet the verse states that David received an answer for his second question, not the first. The Gemara answers: David asked the questions