THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
HORAYOS 9-10 - One week of study material has been dedicated by Mrs. Rita
Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok
Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly
in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him. His
Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
1) THE ARGUMENT REGARDING THE OBLIGATION TO BRING A "KORBAN OLEH V'YORED"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah earlier (8b) records an argument between Rebbi Yosi
ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Beis Din
and the Nasi are not obligated to bring a Korban for transgressing the
Isurim which mandate a Korban Oleh v'Yored -- the Isur of Shemi'as Kol, the
Isur of Bituy Sefasayim, or the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi
Akiva maintains that the Nasi is obligated to bring his special Korban for
transgressing these Isurim, except for the Isur of Shemi'as Kol, since the
Nasi is never called upon to give testimony as a witness.
The Mishnah (9a) continues with an argument between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi
Eliezer. Rebbi Shimon says that only Beis Din is exempt from these three
Korbanos of Oleh v'Yored. An ordinary person, a Nasi, and a Kohen Gadol are
all obligated to bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored for transgressing these Isurim,
with the only exception being that a Kohen Gadol does not have to bring a
Korban for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi Eliezer states that the Nasi
brings a Se'ir (and not an Oleh v'Yored), as he does for transgressing any
other Isur Kares. Are these four Tana'im -- Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, Rebbi
Akiva, Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Eliezer arguing with each other?
(a) The RAMBAM in PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS says that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi
Eliezer are not necessary arguing with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva.
These two Mishnayos are discussing different subjects. The first Mishnah
(8b) is discussing whether or not there is an obligation for the Beis Din to
bring a Par He'elem Davar, or for the Nasi to bring a Se'ir, for these
transgressions. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that they are exempt from bringing
their special Korbanos. They might still be obligated, however, to bring a
normal Korban Oleh v'Yored. That is the topic of the Mishnah here (9a), in
which Rebbi Shimon says that Beis Din brings *no* Korban (not even a normal
Oleh v'Yored), while a Nasi brings an Oleh v'Yored, and Rebbi Eliezer says
that a Nasi brings his normal Korban of a Se'ir. (Consequently, Rebbi
Eliezer is certainly arguing with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, but not necessarily
with Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Shimon might not be arguing with either Rebbi Yosi
ha'Glili or Rebbi Akiva.)
However, in the YAD HA'CHAZAKAH (Hilchos Shegagos 10:7) the Rambam makes a
problematic statement. He rules that both a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol must
bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored for these three transgressions. This ruling is
closest to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says that a Kohen Gadol and Nasi
bring an Oleh v'Yored, except that a Kohen Gadol does *not* bring a Korban
for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. The RA'AVAD argues that the Nasi is not
obligated to bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol (since he does not give
testimony), and the Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash
v'Kodashav (as Rebbi Shimon states). What is the source for the Rambam's
The KEREN ORAH explains that the Rambam understands the Mishnah differently
than Rashi and the Ra'avad (as is apparent from his explanation in Perush
ha'Mishnayos). The Rambam understands that the first part of our Mishnah --
which says that for these three transgressions, "Beis Din is exempt, and an
ordinary person, Nasi, and [Kohen] Mashi'ach are obligated" -- is the end of
a statement by *the Tana Kama*. The Tana Kama maintains that the ordinary
person, the Nasi, and the Kohen Gadol are always obligated to bring a Korban
Oleh v'Yored, for every one of these three Isurim. The Mishnah then quotes
Rebbi Shimon who argues that "the Kohen Gadol Mashi'ach is not obligated [to
bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored] for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav." The Rambam
rules in accordance with the view of the Tana Kama.
(b) The RA'AVAD learns the Mishnah like Rashi does. RASHI (DH Rebbi Eliezer)
indeed understands that these four Tana'im are all arguing with each other.
Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that a Nasi and Kohen Gadol are exempt from
bringing Korbanos for these three Isurim. While Rebbi Akiva agrees that a
Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored, he does maintain that the
Kohen Gadol must bring his usual Korban of a Par for these transgressions.
Rebbi Akiva also maintains that a Nasi is exempt only from Shemi'as Kol.
Rebbi Shimon argues and maintains that both the Nasi and the Kohen Gadol are
obligated to bring an Oleh v'Yored, except that a Kohen Gadol is exempt in
the case of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi Eliezer holds like Rebbi
Shimon, but he argues that the Nasi brings a Se'ir, and not an Oleh v'Yored,
for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav (see Gemara 9b).
Since the Ra'avad learns that there is no Tana Kama in the Mishnah, there is
no opinion who states that a Kohen Gadol brings an Oleh v'Yored for Tum'as
Mikdash v'Kodashav. In addition, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva agree
that the Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol. The Keren Orah
asserts that the Ra'avad learns that Rebbi Shimon also agrees that a Nasi
does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol. This seems difficult, though,
because Rebbi Shimon does not clarify that a Nasi is exempt from Shemi'as
Kol. The Keren Orah suggests that this part of the Ra'avad's ruling is
actually the correct text of the Yerushalmi (2:7, the opposite of the
printed text of the standard Yerushalmi). According to his Girsa of the
Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi says, "[The law] that the Nasi does not bring a
Korban for Shemi'as Kol is agreed upon by all. And [the law] that the Kohen
Gadol does not bring a Korban on Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav is according to
Rebbi Shimon." Even according to our texts of the Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi
is also a difficult on the Rambam's opinion, because it states that
according to all opinions the Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'as
Mikdash v'Kodashav (see MAREH HA'PANIM on the Yerushalmi).
The TOSFOS YOM TOV apparently learns that the Ra'avad agrees with Rashi that
the two Mishnayos are similar, and that there is no Tana that holds that a
Kohen Gadol brings an Oleh v'Yored for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. The reason
why the Ra'avad says that the Nasi does not bring an Oleh v'Yored for
Shemi'as Kol is because he rules like Rebbi Akiva (see KESEF MISHNEH,
Hilchos Shegagos 10:7).
(Although we have explained the opinion of Rashi (in DH Rebbi Eliezer),
Rashi earlier makes a statement that is not clear. Rashi (DH u'Mah Hen
Mevi'in) states that the question at the end of the Mishnah is what Korban
does a Nasi bring for *Bituy Sefasayim* and for *Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav*,
and what does a Kohen Gadol bring for *Shemi'as Kol* and for *Bituy
Sefasayim*. Rashi there implies that he learns that Rebbi Shimon agrees that
a Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol (like the Keren Orah's
understanding of the Ra'avad). This is an apparent contradiction to the
other comment of Rashi (DH Rebbi Eliezer), in which Rashi states that Rebbi
Shimon holds that the only exemption is a Kohen Gadol from Tum'as Mikdash
v'Kodashav, and does not mention the exemption of a Nasi. This is apparently
the question of the Tosfos Yom Tov when he says, "I did not understand
Rashi's words on this matter.") (Y. Montrose)
2) THE DEFINITION OF "AVAR M'MESHICHUSO"
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that whether a Kohen Gadol sinned and then was
"Avar m'Meshichuso" (lit. "removed from his appointed position"), or if he
was "Avar m'Meshichuso" and then sinned, he brings the special Par Kohen
Gadol and not a regular Korban Chatas.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shegagos 15:7) writes that the words "Avar m'Meshichuso"
refer to a Kohen Gadol who was permanently removed from his position due,
for example, to a Mum (blemish) or because of old age. The former Kohen
Gadol still brings the special Par Kohen Gadol. The Rambam adds that the
reason for this is because of the dictum of the Mishnah (11b) which states,
"There is no difference between an active Kohen Gadol and a retired one
aside from the Par of Yom Kipur and the tenth of an Eifah (brought every
day), which are brought only by the active Kohen Gadol." However, they are
equal in all other aspects, including the Par Kohen Gadol.
The LECHEM MISHNEH is perplexed by the words of the Rambam. It seems that
the Rambam understands that the case of the Mishnah later (11b) which
discusses a Kohen "she'Avar" is the same as the case of the Mishnah here
(11b) which discusses a Kohen "she'Avar *m'Meshichuso*." That is, according
to the Rambam, the Mishnah later states that the only difference between the
Kohen Gadol who was removed from his position *permanently*, due to a Mum or
old age, and the active Kohen Gadol, is the Par of Yom Kipur and the tenth
of an Eifah. However, the Mishnah cannot be talking about such Kohanim,
because a Kohen with a Mum may not perform *any* Avodah at all, and
certainly not the Avodah of Yom Kipur!
Additionally, the Gemara later (12b) explains that the teaching of the
Mishnah there (on 11b) regarding a Kohen she'Avar is following the view of
Rebbi Meir, who writes that if a Kohen Gadol becomes temporarily unfit for
work and another Kohen is appointed in his place, the first one returns to
his position when he becomes fit again, while the second one becomes a
"Kohen Gadol she'Avar" and retains the status of a Kohen Gadol for most
matters. That is, the Gemara is explicit that the case of Kohen Gadol
she'Avar is referring to a Kohen who no longer serves as a *full* Kohen
Gadol, but he *is* fit to serve in the Mikdash. How, then, can the Rambam
learn that the Mishnah there is discussing a Kohen who has a blemish or is
too old to serve in the Mikdash?
Furthermore, the Rambam (Hilchos Yom ha'Kipurim 1:3) rules like Rebbi Yosi
who argues with Rebbi Meir with regard to the law of the Mishnah (on 11b).
How, then, can the Rambam quote as Halachah this Mishnah, which follows the
view of Rebbi Meir?
(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL here explains that the case of the Mishnah (on 11b)
is certainly meant to be understood as the Gemara explains it. However, the
interpretation of the Rambam for the ruling of our Mishnah is also correct;
a Kohen Gadol with a Mum also retains his Kedushah. The Tiferes Yisrael's
proof for this is from the Gemara later (12b), which mentions that even a
permanently disabled Kohen Gadol is prohibited from marrying an Almanah, a
widow. If the Isur to marry an Almanah applies to him (as if he were a
full-fledged Kohen Gadol), it stands to reason that the obligation to bring
a Par Kohen Gadol applies to him as well.
However, the TIFERES YAKOV points out that this does not really answer the
Lechem Mishneh's question. Although it is true that the Kohen Gadol with a
Mum retains his Kedushah, why does the Rambam imply that the two Mishnayos
are discussing the same case, if the Mishnah there is discussing a Kohen who
is fit to serve in the Mikdash? Thus, we remain with the questions of the
(b) The TZVI TIFERES and KEREN ORAH answer that the Rambam certainly agrees
with the obvious fact that the Mishnah (on 11b) is discussing a Kohen Gadol
who *is* still fit to serve in the Mikdash. The Mishnah here, on the other
hand, is discussing even a Kohen Gadol with a permanent disability. Why,
then, does the Rambam seem to equate the two Mishnayos?
They explain that the Rambam is simply taking the *wording* of the other
Mishnah and applying it to the law in this Mishnah. The point of the Mishnah
(on 11b) is that once a Kohen serves even temporarily as a Kohen Gadol, he
always maintains the Kedushah of a Kohen Gadol. Although, in the Mishnah
there, the Kohen Gadol is still fit to serve in the Mikdash, the Rambam
maintains that we see from there that a Kohen Gadol cannot lose his
Kedushah, due to the principle of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Ein Moridin" (one
rises in Kedushah and does not fall). That lesson from the Mishnah later may
be applied to illustrate that even a disabled Kohen Gadol still brings a
Par -- for he retains the Kedushah of a Kohen Gadol.
This also answers why the Rambam uses the wording of the Mishnah even though
the Mishnah itself is following the non-Halachic opinion Rebbi Meir. The
Rambam is not telling us that the law of the Mishnah is correct
Halachically. Rather, he is telling us the principle which is expressed in
those words of the Mishnah, namely, that a Kohen Gadol always retains his
Kedushah because of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Ein Moridin." This principle is true
according to both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi. (See also MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH on
the Rambam, and TOSFOS YOM TOV 3:2). (Y. Montrose)