Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 47

1) WHICH KOHEN GADOL SHOULD BE "METAMEI" FIRST?

QUESTION: The Gemara inquires, regarding various cases wherein two Kohanim of different positions are walking together and find a Mes Mitzvah, which one should be Metamei himself for the Mes Mitzvah? The Gemara says that when a Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim" (he became Kohen Gadol by donning the eight vestments of the Kohen Gadol and doing the Avodah for seven consecutive days to indicate his consecration) and a Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" (he was anointed as Kohen Gadol with the Shemen ha'Mishchah), the "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" is more Kadosh and therefore the other Kohen Gadol, who is "Merubeh Begadim," should be Metamei for the Mes Mitzvah.

The Gemara says that when a Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim" and a Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" (he was anointed as Kohen Gadol with the Shemen ha'Mishchah to serve as a substitute Kohen Gadol, and now that the original Kohen Gadol has returned he can no longer serve either as a Kohen Gadol or as a Kohen Hedyot in the Mikdash) are walking together and find a Mes Mitzvah, it is preferable for the Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" to be Metamei rather than the "Merubeh Begadim." The reason is because a "Mashu'ach she'Avar" is not fit to perform the Avodah, while the "Merubeh Begadim" is fit to perform the Avodah, and therefore the "Merubeh Begadim" should be the last to be Metamei.

We know that the reason why any Kohen Gadol she'Avar cannot serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash is because he has no option how many Bigdei Kehunah to wear in order to perform the Avodah. He cannot wear the four Bigdei Kehunah of a Kohen Hedyot, because of the rule "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin." On the other hand, he cannot wear the eight Bigdei Kehunah of the Kohen Gadol, because it will cause the other Kohen Gadol to feel jealousy towards him ("Mishum Eivah"). Therefore, we do not allow a Kohen Gadol she'Avar to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash at all.

We see, then, that the reason why he cannot serve as a Kohen Gadol is only because of an Isur d'Rabanan ("Mishum Eivah") enacted to prevent discord between the Kohen Gadol and the Kohen Gadol she'Avar. If it is only an Isur d'Rabanan, then the Kedushah of the Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" should be the same as that of a Kohen Gadol who is still able to serve, since mid'Oraisa they are both able to perform the Avodah! The fact that the Rabanan prohibited him from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash should not detract from his Kedushah! Why, then, do we require that the Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" to be Metamei himself? To be Metamei himself is an Isur d'Oraisa, and on a d'Oraisa level, certainly the Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" has more Kedushah than the Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim." It is only mid'Rabanan that he is not allowed to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why should this Isur d'Rabanan detract from the Kedushah of the "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" so that we allow him to be Metamei himself before the "Merubeh Begadim?" (TUREI EVEN in Chagigah, cited by ARZEI HA'LEVANON, footnote 31, and Tziyunim 4.)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TUREI EVEN suggests that the laws of precedence in our Gemara are all mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa, though, any Kohen Gadol may be Metamei himself first and there is no requirement that one should be Metamei himself before the other because of a greater Kedushah. The Halachos that a Kohen Gadol she'Avar should be Metamei himself before a "Merubeh Begadim," and that a "Merubeh Begadim" should be Metamei himself before a "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" (who is not "she'Avar"), are all mid'Rabanan. Therefore, the Isur d'Rabanan for the Kohen Gadol she'Avar to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash because of Eivah is able to affect the order of precedence of who is Metamei himself first.

However, the ARZEI HA'LEVANON cites RAV AVRAHAM GENECHOFSKY who points out that the Gemara in Maseches Horiyos (13a) seems to follow the same criteria of precedence with regard to another Halachah: who should be kept alive first. In a situation where there is a choice to keep either a Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" alive or to keep a Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim" alive, we give precedence to the Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim," because he is able to perform the Avodah while the "Mashu'ach she'Avar" cannot perform the Avodah. But if it is only mid'Rabanan that the "Mashu'ach she'Avar" cannot perform the Avodah, then why should that affect the Halachah of keeping him alive? The choice of which Kohen Gadol to keep alive first certainly seems to be a Halachah d'Oraisa!

(b) The question that the Turei Even asks is based on the premise that the Kedushah of one Kohen Gadol is greater than that of another Kohen Gadol and that determines who should be Metamei for a Mes Mitzvah first, and whom we should keep alive first. Perhaps, however, there is another factor involved, and that factor is the need that the people have for that Kohen Gadol. The Gemara mentions this factor later on with regard to the requirement for a S'gan Kohen Gadol to be Metamei before a Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach Milchamah," saying that it is because the Tzibur needs him more than they need the S'gan. It could be that with regard to the Kohen Gadol as well we have an interest in keeping him Tahor, or keeping him alive, because the Tzibur needs him to officiate in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Even though the Avodah can be performed by regular Kohanim, the Kohen Gadol is the one who brings the Chavisei Kohen Gadol twice each day, and in general oversees all of the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Even though the one who has more Kedushah takes precedence when both Kohanim Gedolim are able to do the Avodah (such as in the case of a "Merubeh Begadim" walking with a "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" who both could serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash, we allow the "Mashu'ach b'Shemen ha'Mishchah" to stay Tahor, and to be kept alive first, due to his greater Kedushah), nonetheless when there is a conflict between the Kedushah of one Kohen and the utility (the Tzorech Tzibur) of another, the one who is needed by the Tzibur comes first. Therefore, the Kohen Gadol "Merubeh Begadim" does not become Tamei if there is a Kohen Gadol "Mashu'ach she'Avar" with him, since the Tzibur needs the "Merubeh Begadim."

Hence, even if a Kohen Gadol she'Avar is prohibited mid'Rabanan from performing the Avodah, because of this prohibition the Tzibur no longer needs him. He cannot serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash, he cannot bring the Chavisei Kohen Gadol, and therefore the "Merubeh Begadim" takes preference, even though it is an Isur d'Rabanan -- the Isur for a Kohen Gadol she'Avar to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash -- that causes it.

We might add to this that perhaps the logic that the Tzibur needs him does not affect the Halachah of whether he may be Metamei himself or not, because, like the Gemara implies, in a case where there is a S'gan Kohen Gadol and a "Mashu'ach Milchamah," we only apply the logic that the Tzibur needs him with regard to keeping him alive, and not with regard to Tum'ah. The logic that the Tzibur needs him will not make a difference for Tum'ah since, anyway, he will become Tahor afterwards, and the Tum'ah is not a permanent condition. Nevertheless, it is possible that the very Isur of a Kohen Gadol becoming Tamei for relatives for whom a Kohen Hedyot *may* be Metamei is directly related to the Mitzvah that he has to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The reason why the Torah prohibits him from becoming Tamei is not because it is a defilement that detracts from his Kedushah, but rather because it is making him unfit to work in the Beis ha'Mikdash. This is implicit in the verses that say regarding the Kohen Gadol, "... for his father and for his mother he shall not become Tamei, *and he shall not leave the Mikdash..." (Vayikra 21:11-12), meaning that he should not become Tamei because that will make him unfit to serve in the Mikdash (see RASHI there). Accordingly, even if the "Mashu'ach she'Avar" cannot serve because of an Isur d'Rabanan (and not because of an Isur d'Oraisa), nevertheless he, practically, cannot serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Since he will not be serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash, with regard to Tum'ah it is not as important that he remain Tahor as it is for the "Merubeh Begadim" who is presently serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

(The Isur of a Kohen Hedyot to be Metamei to a Mes who is not one of his seven close relatives does not seem to be related to his Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, since even a Kohen Hedyot who has a Mum (who cannot serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash) is prohibited from being Metamei to a Mes. Nevertheless, the added Isur of a Kohen Gadol not to be Metamei even to close relatives (whom a Kohen Hedyot is *required* to bury) is related to the command "he shall not leave the Mikdash" as the verse implies, because of his added responsibility to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash (the Avodah of the Chavisei Kohen Gadol and overseeing the other Avodah).)

47b

QUESTIONS: The Gemara asks who should be Metamei first to a Mes Mitzvah when a S'gan Kohen Gadol and a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" are walking together. Is it more important for the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" to remain Tahor because he is fit to lead in war, or is it more important for the S'gan Kohen Gadol to remain Tahor since he is fit to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash?

(a) What does it mean that the S'gan is fit to do the Avodah and therefore he should remain Tahor? The "Mashu'ach Milchamah" is also a Kohen and he may also perform the Avodah (in addition to leading the army in war)!

(b) Why does the Gemara suggest that a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" should not become Tamei because he is fit to lead the army in war? How is that related at all to becoming Tamei? Even if he becomes Tamei he should still be fit to lead the army war! During a war, obviously the warriors are going to be involved with Tum'as Mes. Are we going to say that if the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" because Tamei, then suddenly he is not fit to be a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" anymore? Why should that be? Why should his state of Tum'ah affect in any way his position as "Mashu'ach Milchamah?" Since Tum'ah does not affect his position as "Mashu'ach Milchamah," why does the Gemara suggest that perhaps he is more fit to remain Tahor because he is fit to lead the nation in war?

ANSWERS:

(a) The Gemara in Yoma (73a) indeed implies that when a Kohen becomes "Mashu'ach" to lead the nation in war, he is no longer fit to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. He cannot serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash with the four Begadim of a Kohen Hedyot, because that would be a decrease in his Kedushah. He cannot serve with the eight Begadim of a Kohen Gadol, because of "Eivah" (see previous Insight). Therefore, he is not allowed to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash once he becomes "Mashu'ach Milchamah."

According to this, the Gemara is easy to understand. When the Gemara compares a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" to a S'gan, it is not only comparing him to a S'gan, but it means to compare him to any Kohen. The Gemara is asking whether the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" should remain Tahor because he leads the nation in war, and he should come even before a S'gan, or whether the S'gan, or any Kohen Hedyot, comes because the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" since the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" is not fit to do Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

However, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Klei ha'Mikdash 4:21) rules that a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" *is* fit to perform the Avodah.

This is also implied by the words of Tosfos here (DH Mashu'ach Milchamah), who implies that it is only a *S'gan Kohen Gadol* who might take precedence over a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" but not every other Kohen Hedyot. When the Gemara says that the S'gan is fit to do Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash and therefore he has precedence, TOSFOS explains that the words "he is fit to do Avodah" does not mean that he is fit to do normal Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash (which would apply to other Kohanim as well). Rather, it means that he has been appointed to do the Avodah *of the Kohen Gadol* in the Beis ha'Mikdash on Yom Kippur! In contrast, the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" was not appointed for that purpose. Although it is true that he may fill in for the Kohen Gadol if there is no one else, the S'gan is specifically *chosen* and appointed for the purpose of filling in for the Kohen Gadol in case something happens to him (and presumably he rehearses the Avodos which are necessary to be performed on Yom Kippur). Therefore, the S'gan is the first choice to replace the Kohen Gadol if something happens to him before him Yom Kippur.

This indeed is implied by the Gemara that cites the statement of Rebbi Chanina ben Antignus at the conclusion of the Sugya, who says that a S'gan Kohen Gadol is appointed in order to replace the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur if the Kohen Gadol becomes unfit to do the Avodah. This implies that when the Gemara says that "he is fit to do Avodah," it means that he is fit to do the Avodah on Yom Kippur.

(b) Regarding why the fact that the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" leads the nation in war should prevent us from letting him become Tamei, the ROSH indeed seems to have a different Girsa in the Gemara. His Girsa is that perhaps it is preferable for the "Mashu'ach Milchamah" to remain Tahor because "*she'Nimshach* l'Milchamah" (and not "d'Chazi l'Milchamah"), meaning that since he was anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah to lead in war, he has more Kedushah and therefore he takes precedence over the S'gan.

Even according to our Girsa in the Gemara, that perhaps a "Mashu'ach Milchamah" should remain Tahor because "d'Chazi l'Milchamah" ("he is *fit* for Milchamah"), we can suggest that since he has a special designation -- which other Kohanim do not have -- to lead the nation in war, therefore he is more Kadosh that other Kohanim and perhaps we should not let him be Metamei because of his Kedushah, even though it does not detract from his service as "Mashu'ach Milchamah."