וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה עָדִיף דְּאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת וְאִילּוּ מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים אֵין מֵבִיא and a High Priest of many garments, i.e., one who was not anointed with oil but who was sanctified by wearing the eight garments of a High Priest, it is preferable that the one who was anointed with the anointing oil remain ritually pure. The Gemara explains: As a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil brings the bull brought for all the mitzvot, i.e., if an anointed priest ruled erroneously with regard to a prohibition that if a Jew transgressed it he would be liable to bring a sin-offering, he brings a bull for his sin-offering (see Leviticus 4:3–12), while a High Priest of many garments does not bring a bull.
מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר וּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים עָדִיף דִּמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה וְאִילּוּ מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר לָאו בַּר עֲבוֹדָה הוּא In a case where a former anointed High Priest, i.e., a priest who had temporarily substituted for a High Priest, is walking together with one of many garments, it is preferable that the one who wears many garments remain ritually pure. The reason is that a High Priest of many garments still performs the service, whereas a former anointed High Priest is no longer able to perform the service.
עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ וְעָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ עָבַר מֵחֲמַת קֵירוּיוֹ עָדִיף דְּאִילּוּ הַאי חֲזִי לַעֲבוֹדָה לְמָחָר וְאִילּוּ עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמוֹ לֹא חֲזִי לָעֲבוֹדָה In a case where an anointed High Priest who temporarily left his role due to his seminal emission is walking with a former anointed High Priest who left his role due to his blemish, it is preferable that the former High Priest who left due to his seminal emission remain ritually pure, as this one, the High Priest who experienced an emission, is fit for the Temple service the following day, while the former anointed High Priest who left due to his blemish is no longer fit for the service at all (see Leviticus 21:16–24).
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וּסְגָן הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף דַּחֲזֵי לְמִלְחָמָה אוֹ דִּלְמָא סְגָן עֲדִיף דַּחֲזֵי לַעֲבוֹדָה § The above cases are all easily resolved and are mentioned merely to introduce the following inquiries, for which there are no obvious answers. A dilemma was raised before the Sages. For which of these two is it preferable that he remain ritually pure: A priest anointed for war, who was anointed with oil and appointed to admonish the troops before battle (see Deuteronomy 20:2) or the deputy [segan] High Priest? Is it preferable that the priest anointed for war remain ritually pure, as he is fit for war? Or, perhaps it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as he is fit for service in the Temple in place of the High Priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּתַנְיָא אֵין בֵּין מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה לִסְגָן אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם הָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בְּדֶרֶךְ וּמָצְאוּ מֵת מִצְוָה יִטַּמֵּא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה וְאַל יִטַּמֵּא הַסְּגָן The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between a priest anointed for war and a deputy High Priest is only that if they were walking along the way and found a met mitzva, the ruling is: Let the one anointed for war become impure, and do not let the deputy become impure.
וְהָתַנְיָא מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה קוֹדֵם לִסְגָן אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא לְעִנְיַן הַחֲיוֹתוֹ מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה עֲדִיף מַאי טַעְמָא דִּתְלוּ בֵּיהּ רַבִּים The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a different baraita: A priest anointed for war takes precedence over the deputy High Priest? Mar Zutra said: This is not difficult. With regard to preserving his life and rescuing him from captivity or from a dangerous situation, it is preferable to preserve the one anointed for war. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the public depends on him in a time of war.
וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה סְגָן עֲדִיף דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר לָמָּה תִּקְּנוּ סְגָן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאִם אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל הֲרֵי נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ תַּחְתָּיו But with regard to ritual impurity, it is preferable that the deputy High Priest remain ritually pure, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Why did the Sages institute a deputy for the High Priest? So that if a disqualification befalls the High Priest, his deputy can enter the Temple and serve in his stead. The deputy High Priest cannot fulfill this function if he is allowed to become ritually impure.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְנָזִיר כִּי קָא אָזְלִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי אֲבָל חַד חַד לְחוֹדֵיהּ בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי אִינּוּן מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי The Gemara turns its attention to the halakha of the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a High Priest and a nazirite who are walking together and find a met mitzva, in which case one of them must become impure. However, it is evident that if each of them is walking separately, they are able, i.e., they are required, to become impure. From where are these matters derived? From where is it learned that a High Priest and a nazirite, who are prohibited from becoming impure even to bury their relatives, must nevertheless become impure to bury a met mitzva?
דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן עַל כׇּל נַפְשׁוֹת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אִי בִּרְחוֹקִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא וּמָה כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁהוּא מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִקְרוֹבִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לִרְחוֹקִים אֶלָּא בִּקְרוֹבִים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר It is as the Sages taught: The verse states with regard to a High Priest: “Neither shall he go in to any dead bodies; nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11). With regard to what bodies is the verse speaking? If it is referring to distant people, i.e., non-relatives, that halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if a common priest, who becomes impure to bury his close family members, may not become impure to bury distant people, then with regard to a High Priest, who does not become impure even to bury close members of his family, is it not logical that he does not become impure to bury distant people? Rather, the verse is speaking of close family members, and it prohibits a High Priest from becoming impure to bury any person, even his relatives.
וּלְאָבִיו הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא הָא מִיטַּמֵּא הוּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה The Gemara comments: With regard to the rest of the verse: “Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother” (Leviticus 21:11), each of these clauses must serve to teach a novel halakha. And the phrase “for his father” teaches: It is to bury his father that he may not become ritually impure, from which it may be inferred that he becomes impure to bury a met mitzva.