לֹא חֶמֶד אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי אֲשֶׁר חָלַק ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם לְהָאִיר לְכׇל הָעַמִּים Instead of Moses’ assertion: “I have not taken one donkey [ḥamor] from them” (Numbers 16:15), they wrote in more general terms: “I have not taken one item of value [ḥemed] from them,” to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:19), they added a word to make it read: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations,” to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them.
וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי לְעוֹבְדָם The verse: “And has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3), could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them.
וְכָתְבוּ לוֹ אֶת צְעִירַת הָרַגְלַיִם וְלֹא כָּתְבוּ לוֹ אֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמַי אַרְנֶבֶת שְׁמָהּ שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר שָׂחֲקוּ בִּי הַיְּהוּדִים וְהֵטִילוּ שֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי בַּתּוֹרָה: And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze’irat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: “And the hare [arnevet]” (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy’s wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף בַּסְּפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אָמַר קְרָא יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל יֶפֶת יִהְיוּ בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: “God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27), indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied.
וְאֵימָא גּוֹמֶר וּמָגוֹג אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת יַפְיוּתוֹ שֶׁל יֶפֶת יְהֵא בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם: The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10:2). The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: “God shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet].” Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi]. The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים אֶלָּא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position.
אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.
גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר [הָא תַּנְיָא] מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering.
מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַנְיָא מָשִׁיחַ אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מִנַּיִן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הַמָּשִׁיחַ The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “The anointed,” with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אֵימָא סֵיפָא אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה הָא לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַנְיָא אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֵׁנִי כׇּל מִצְוֹת כְּהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה עָלָיו דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף בֶּן אִלֵּם מִצִּיפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִינּוּהוּ תַּחְתָּיו וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ שֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest.
כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אִין רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי הִיא וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי: Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tanna’im, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לַבָּמָה קְטַנָּה אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים זֶה הַכְּלָל כֹּל שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב קָרֵב בְּבָמָה וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב אֵינוֹ קָרֵב בְּבָמָה: MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar.
גְּמָ׳ פְּסָחִים וְתוּ לָא אֵימָא כְּעֵין פְּסָחִים GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs.
מַנִּי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים וְחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן אֲבָל חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן הָכָא וְהָכָא לָא קְרוּב: The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין שִׁילֹה לִירוּשָׁלַיִם אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּשִׁילֹה אוֹכְלִין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכׇל הָרוֹאֶה וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls.
וְכָאן וְכָאן קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים קְדוּשַּׁת שִׁילֹה And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,