(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Horayos 13

HORAYOS 12-14 - 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.



(a) Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "Ve'asah la'Par Ka'asher Asah le'Par ha'Chatas", the Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ve'saraf Oso Kasher Saraf es ha'Par ha'Rishon" - that the Par of the Kohen Gadol must take precedence over that of the Tzibur.

(b) Another Beraisa ascribes this precedence to the fact - that it is essential for the one who is atoning to atone for himself before atoning for others.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Aharon's Par on Yom Kipur) "Ve'chiper Ba'ado u'Ve'ad Beiso ... " - the principle that a person first atones for himself before atoning for others.

(a) The Beraisa gives the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur precedence over the Par shel Avodas-Kochavim - because, as a rule, a Chatas takes precedence over an Olah.

(b) In connection with the two birds of a Korban Oleh ve'Yored, the Torah has already written "ve'es ha'Sheini Ya'aseh Olah ka'Mishpat". It nevertheless adds "Ve'hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah" to teach us - that a Chatas always precedes an Olah ...

(c) ... even in the case of a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimas.

(d) The problem with the Tana's ruing that the Par Avodas-Kochavim takes precedence over the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim lies in the fact - that the Par is an Olah whereas the Sa'ir is a Chatas (clashing with the principle that we just learned).

(a) They learned in Eretz Yisrael in the name of Rabah bar Mari learn from the fact that the word "Chatas" by the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim is missing an 'Alef' - that the Par le'Olah takes precedence (in spite of the principle).

(b) Rava answers the Kashya by citing the word "ka'Mishpat" written by Avodas-Kochavim - implying that the Korbanos must be brought in the order that they are mentioned (and the Torah mentions the Par first).

(c) The Sa'ir ...

1. ... Avodas-Kochavim take precedence over the Sa'ir of the Nasi - because a Tzibur takes precedence over a Yachid.
2. ... of the Nasi take precedence over the Se'irah of a Yachid - because a king takes precedence over a Yachid.
(a) One Beraisa gives the Se'irah of a Yachid precedence over a Kisbah. Another Beraisa says - the opposite.

(b) Abaye presents this as a Machlokes Tana'im. The basis for giving precedence to the ...

1. ... Se'irah lies in the fact that it (and not a Kisbah) is brought for Avodas-Kochavim.
2. ... Kisbah - lies in the fact that it incorporates a fat-tail (which a Se'irah does not).
(c) The Beraisa rules that the Omer (on Pesach) and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem (on Shavu'os) - take precedence over the Korbanos that accompany them ...

(d) ... because the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem constitute the order of the day, whereas the Korbanos come only because of the bread, and the order of the day always takes preference.

(a) Our Mishnah gives precedence to a man over a woman to save his life and to return his lost articles - and to a woman over a man regarding clothes and redeeming from captivity (because as far as the woman is concerned, these are tied up with Tzeni'us [modesty], and a woman generally feels this more acutely than a man).

(b) A male captive takes precedence however - if he will be subjected to homosexuality (because of the unnatural circumstances of the sin).

(c) If Reuven, his mother, his father and his Rebbe were all captured (assuming that Reuven, has sufficient funds to redeem one, two or three of them) - the order of precedence given by the Beraisa is - in exactly the reverse order (i.e. 1. himself first, 2. his mother, as we explained in our Mishnah, 3. his Rebbe, who brings him to Olam ha'Ba [as we learned in Bava Metzi'a], and only then his father, who brought him into this world).

(d) A Chacham, says the Tana, takes precedence over a king - because a king who dies is replaceable, whereas a Chacham is unique.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk, where David Hamelech said ..
1. ... to Tzadok ha'Kohen "Kechu Imachem es Avdei Adoneichem" - that a king has priority over a Kohen Gadol (since 'Adoneichem' referred to himself).
2. ... "u'Mashach Oso Sham Tzadok ha'Kohen ve'Nasan ha'Navi" - that a Kohen Gadol has priority over a Navi.
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. .... "Sh'ma Na Yehoshua ha'Kohen ha'Gadol Atah ve'Re'echa ... " - exactly the same thing (seeing as the friends of Yehoshua Kohen Gadol were Nevi'im, which we learn from the Pasuk ...
2. ... "Ki Anshei Mofes Heimah" (just as the Torah writes in Shoftim [in connection with a Navi] "Ve'nasan Eilecha Os O Mofes").
(c) The order of priority in which the Beraisa places S'gan, Mashu'ach Milchamah, Kohen she'Avar Machmas Mumo, Kohen she'Avar Machmas Kiryo, Merubeh Begadim and Kohen Mashi'ach is - again precisely in the reverse order.

(d) At the lower end of the scale, the order reads S'gan, Amarkol, Gizbar, Rosh Mishmar, Rosh Beis Av and Kohen Hedyot. The Amarkol - as his name suggests ('Amar Kula'), was the officer in charge of all the affairs of the Beis-Hamikdash. His word was final.

(a) They asked what the Din would be if a S'gan and a Mashu'ach Milchamah came upon a Meis Mitzvah(i.e. which one would be obligated to bury it and render himself Tamei). Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Nachman, citing a Beraisa, placed the onus on the Mashu'ach Milchamah - because should the Kohen Gadol become Pasul, it is the S'gan who would have to perform the Avodah in his place.

(b) He reconciled this ruling with another Beraisa, which gives precedence to the Mashu'ach Milchamah - by establishing it with regard to sustaining them, where he takes precedence ...

(c) ... because the Tzibur need him to go to battle more than they need the S'gan (or because his Kedushah is higher, as we just learned).

(a) A Kohen, Levi, Yisrael and Mamzer follow that order of precedence. And here again, our Mishnah places an Eved Meshuchrar (an Eved who has been set free), a Ger, a Nasin (whom Yehoshua appointed wood-choppers and water-drawers) and a Mamzer - in the reverse order.

(b) A Mamzer has priority over a Kohen Gadol however - if he is also a Talmid-Chacham (and the Kohen Gadol is not). (c) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "B'nei Amram, Aharon u'Moshe, Va'yavdel Aharon ... " - that a Kohen takes precedence over a Levi.
2. ... "be'Eis ha'Hi Hivdil Hashem es Sheivet ha'Levi" - that a Levi takes precedence over a Yisrael.
(d) The Tana gives priority to ...
1. ... a Yisrael over a Mamzer - because he has Yichus (pedigree).
2. ... a Mamzer over a Nasin - because he is born to Jewish parents.
3. ... a Nasin over a Ger - because he has lived among us for a longer period of time.
4. ... a Ger over an Eved Meshuchrar - because he has not been subject to a curse.
(a) Rav Acha b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk (with reference to Torah) "Yekarah Hi mi'Peninim" that Torah is more precious even than a Kohen Gadol who goes inside the Kodesh Kodshim (Lifnai ve'Lifnim) on Yom Kipur (the source for the ruling in our Mishnah that a Mamzer Kohen Gadol takes precedence over a Kohen Gadol Am-ha'Aretz).

(b) We just explained why a Ger takes precedence over an Eved Meshuchrar. Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai in a Beraisa explains that if not for that, an Eved Meshuchrar would be given priority - because he has lived among us for a longer period of time (as we explained by Nasin).

(c) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Tzadok uses the same curse to explain - why people are generally happy to marry a Giyores, but shun a Meshuchreres.

(d) Alternatively this is due to the fact -that the latter is likely to be more promiscuous than the former, either because she is used to that sort of life as a Shifchah, or because unlike the Giyores, who guarded he chastity (in anticipation of her conversion), *she* would not have known that her master intended to set her free.

(a) When Rebbi Elazar's Talmidim asked him ...
1. ... why a cat does not acknowledge its Creator, even though a dog does, he repied - that this is because seeing that people who eat food that has merely been bitten by a mouse, forgets his learning ('Kashah le'Shikchah'), how much more so a cat, who eats the mice themselves.
2. ... why people tend to chase mice relentlessly - he attributed it to the evil nature of the mice, who, unlike most creatures (which only bite the food that they want to eat because they are hungry), bite and spoil anything, whether they are hungry or not (much like the difference between a Mumar le'Te'avon and a Mumar Le'hach'is [someone who sins for his personal pleasure and someone who sins to anger Hashem]).
(b) Rava gave as an example, the fact that they even bite clothes. Rav Papa gave the example of - the handle of a spade.



(a) The Beraisa states - that eating something that a mouse or cat ate, the heart of an animal or olives (regularly) - causes people to forget what they have learned.

(b) The Tana includes in this list - drinking the remains of the bath-water, and washing one foot on top of the other.

(c) According to others - using one's clothes as a pillow will have the same affect.

(a) On the other hand, the Tana adds - that eating bread baked on coal, the coal itself or a boiled egg without salt - has the opposite affect, namely, it brings back one's learning.

(b) The Tana adds someone who drinks olive oil regularly, someone who drinks from the leftovers water used for kneading dough and someone who regularly drinks wine and smells spices.

(c) Others add - someone who dips his finger in salt and eats it.

(d) The inclusion of olive-oil and wine and spices in the list remind us of statements by Rebbi Yochanan and Rava respectively.

1. Rebbi Yochanan - that just as olives cause one to forget one's learning, so too, does olive-oil cause one to recall it.
2. Rava said - that it was the wine and spices that he constantly used when he was young, that turned him into the wise man that he was.
(a) According to Resh Lakish, when Yesh Omrim added to the list dipping one's finger in salt and eating it, he meant specifically one finger and no more. This is also the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in another Beraisa. Rebbi Yossi says - two fingers and not three.

(b) The Kemitzah (the index finger) will help us to remember this Machlokes - because if one bends it, one is left with one finger on one side and two, on the other (not counting the thumb, which is not in line with the other fingers anyway).

(c) The Beraisa states that someone who walks under the bridle of a camel or the camel itself, someone who passes between two camels or two women, or two men between whom a woman passes - make learning difficult (because they cause a Timtum ha'Leiv).

(d) The Tana adds someone who inhales the repugnant smell of a carcass. He uses the expression 'ha'Over Tachas' in that connection" - because smells tend to rise, so that ultimately, one is standing underneath them.

(a) And he also adds someone who stands underneath a bridge or who eats bread or meat. He is talking about ...
1. ... a bridge - through which water has not flowed for forty days.
2. ... bread - that is only partially baked.
3. ... meat - that one served with a ladle which is used to move the scum to the side of the pot.
(b) One of the two final items that the Tana lists are someone who drinks from a stream which runs through a Beis-ha'Kevaros; the other is - someone who looks (intently) at the face of a dead person.

(c) Others add - someone who reads the script on a grave.

(a) The Beraisa discusses the procedure when the various sages enter the Beis-Hamedrash. When the Nasi enters, everyone is obligated to rise from their seats, and when the Av Beis-Din enters, they all rise and form two rows, between which he passes. They are permitted to sit - when the Nasi permits them to do so, and when the Av Beis-Din has sat down respectively.

(b) The Din of sitting down regarding a Chacham, is equivalent to that of an Av Beis-Din. When he enters however - each person stands as he walks past him.

(c) The sons of the Chachamim and their Tamidim are permitted to ...

1. ... pass over the heads of the people when they enter a full Beis-Hamedrash - provided the community needs them (see Chok Nasan).
2. ... return once they leave - provided they left because they needed to.
(d) The difference the Tana Kama draws between the children of the community leaders who are able to understand the D'rashah and those who are not is - that the former sit in the 'Mizrach' facing their fathers, whereas the latter face the people (according to others, they sit behind their fathers rather than in front of them).

(e) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi extends this latter Halachah beyond the precincts of the Beis-Hamedrash - to the banquet-hall, where one places the sons of the community leaders besides the elders.

(a) We just learned that the sons of the Chachamim and their Tamidim are permitted to return once they leave - provided they left because they needed to. Rav Papa qualifies this - by confining it to where they left in order to urinate (but not in order to relieve themselves [for Gedolim]).

(b) His reason is based on a statement of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - who said that a person should make a point of relieving himself early in the morning and late at night, in order to avoid having to travel out of town in the middle of the day to do so. Consequently, someone who does not, is considered negligent.

(c) This distinction no longer applies however - due to our weaker dispositions.

(d) Rava qualifies Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi's ruling (ragarding placing the sons of the community leaders besides the elders in the banquet-hall) - to where their fathers are still alive, but not to where they have already died.

(a) The current Beraisa was learned in the days of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. He changed the original Minhag - (whereby the Av Beis-Din received the same Kavod as the Nasi), because he considered it becoming for a Nasi to receive more Kavod than an Av Beis-Din and a Chacham.

(b) Rebbi Meir - who was a Chacham, and Rebbi Nasan - who was the Av Beis-Din, were not in the Beis-Hamedrash that day.

(c) When they discovered why the people no longer stood up for them in the way that they used to - they decided, that to teach Raban Shimon ben Gamliel a lesson, they would ask him to teach them Maseches Uktzin, which they knew he had not learned thoroughly.

(d) When they quoted the Pasuk "Mi Yemalel Gevuros Hashem Yashmi'a Kol Tehilaso" they meant - that it is not befitting for someone who does not know the whole Torah to be the teacher of K'lal Yisrael.

(e) By planning this coup - they intended Rebbi Nasan to take over the Nesi'us and Rebbi Meir to become the Av Beis-Din.

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov ben Karshi overheard them plotting. He intervened on the part of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - to spare him from being embarrassed in public.

(b) To do that - he sat at the back of his attic, and began to recite Uktzin over and over again, until Raban Shimon ben Gamliel realizing that something was afoot, took his cue from him and perfected his knowledge of the Masechta (on that one night).

(c) Initially, he penalized Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Nasan by sending them out of the Beis-Hamedrash.

(d) He changed his mind however - when they began sending questions into the Beis-Hamedrash, some of which only they were able to answer. And it was when Rebbi Yossi observed that although they (the other Chachamim) were in the Beis-Hamedrash, Torah was outside, that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel recalled them.

(e) He switched the punishment - by giving them impersonal names from then on. He called Rebbi Meir 'Acherim' and Rebbi Nasan 'Yesh Omrim'.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,