מפת הסוגיא — יומא ע״בSugya map — Yoma 72

רחבא בשם רב יהודה: הקורע בכוונה בגד מבגדי הכהונה לוקה, שנאמר בכתב המעיל ״לא ייקרע״ — וכשם שאסור לקרוע פי המעיל, כך כל בגדי כהונה. הקשה רב אחא בר יעקב: שמא הכתוב מסביר בלבד — ׳עשו שפה כדי שלא ייקרע׳ — ואינו לאו? דחייה: וכי כתוב ״כדי שלא ייקרע״? משמע שהוא לאו.

§ The Gemara discusses various halakhot concerning the priestly vestments and other sacred vessels: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: One who intentionally tears any of the priestly vestments transgresses a prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated concerning the robe: “It shall have a hem of woven work around the opening of it, like the opening of a coat of mail, and it shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32). Just as it is prohibited to tear the opening of the robe, so too, it is prohibited to tear any of the priestly vestments. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah: An opening should be made in order that it not tear. In other words, the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not be torn? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition.

ר׳ אלעזר: המזיח (מנתק) את החושן מעל האפוד, והמסיר את בדי הארון מטבעותיהם — לוקה, שנאמר ״לא יזח החושן״ ו״לא יסורו ממנו״ (הבדים). הקשה רב אחא בר יעקב: שמא הכתוב רק מורה לחזקם ולהדקם היטב כדי שלא יזוזו? דחייה: וכי כתוב ״כדי שלא יזח״ ו״כדי שלא יסורו״? משמע שהם לאוין.

Rabbi Elazar said: One who detaches the breastplate from upon the ephod or one who removes the staves of the Ark from their rings transgresses a Torah prohibition and is flogged, as it is stated: “And the breastplate shall not be detached from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28),and it is also stated: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects to this: But perhaps when the Merciful One said this in the Torah, the intention was to strengthen them and make them fast so that the breastplate not become detached from the ephod and the staves not be removed. He suggests that the Torah was giving an explanation, not a prohibition. The Gemara rejects this: Is it written: In order that it not become detached, and: In order that they not be removed? Clearly, the intention of the verse is to state a prohibition.

ר׳ יוסי בר׳ חנינא מקשה סתירה: כתוב ״בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים לא יסורו ממנו״ — שהבדים קבועים תמיד; וכתוב ״והובא את בדיו בטבעות״ — שמכניסים אותם בשעת השימוש, משמע שאינם קבועים. כיצד מיישבים? הבדים ׳מתפרקין ואין נשמטין׳ — רחבים בקצותיהם, ולכן זזים אך אינם יוצאים לגמרי.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, raised a contradiction. In one verse it is written: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), implying the staves should remain there permanently. But in another verse it is written: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7), implying that when the Ark is used the staves are inserted, which suggests that they do not remain there permanently. How is this contradiction resolved? The staves could be removed from their position, i.e., they were loosened, but did not come out. The staves were wider at their ends and thinner in the middle. Therefore, once they had been forced into the rings, although they could be shifted, they would not be removed entirely.

ברייתא תומכת בכך: ״בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים״ — יכול לא יזוזו כלל? תלמוד לומר ״והובא את בדיו בטבעות״ (זזים). אי ״והובא את בדיו״ — יכול נכנסים ויוצאים לגמרי? תלמוד לומר ״בטבעות הארון יהיו הבדים״. כיצד? מתפרקין (זזים) ואין נשמטין (יוצאים).

That was also taught in a baraita. The verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). One might have thought that they should not move from their place at all; therefore; the verse states: “And its staves shall be put into the rings” (Exodus 27:7). If it had stated: And its staves shall be put, one might have thought that they are inserted and removed entirely; therefore, the verse states: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15). How is this? They could be removed from their position, but did not come out.

ר׳ חמא בר׳ חנינא דורש ״עצי שטים עומדים״: שעומדים כדרך גדילתם (כיוון צמיחתם); דבר אחר: שמעמידים את ציפויָם (הזהב) ואינו נופל; דבר אחר: שמא תאמר משבטל המשכן אבדה תקוותם ובטל סיכויָם — תלמוד לומר ״עומדים״, שהם עומדים לעולם ולעולמים.

The Gemara cites other statements concerning the ark. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And you shall make the boards for the Tabernacle of acacia wood, standing” (Exodus 26:15)? This verse teaches that the boards of wood used for the Tabernacle should stand in the same direction in which they grew from the ground as a tree. Alternatively, “standing” means that they supported their gold plating and prevented it from falling. Alternatively, “standing” is written to hint at the following: Perhaps you will say that now that the Tabernacle is no longer in use, their hope is lost and their chance is abandoned, and after being stored away the boards will no longer return to use. Therefore, the verse states “standing” to indicate that they stand forever and ever.

ר׳ חמא בר חנינא פותח: מה הטעם שהכתוב מכנה את בגדי הכהונה ״בגדי השרד״? (השאלה נפתחת כאן ונענית בשני אופנים בהמשך.)

§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the priestly vestments: Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The plaited [serad] garments, for serving in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 35:19)? Why does the verse refer to the priestly vestments as “serad garments”?

דרשה ראשונה: אלמלא בגדי הכהונה, המכפרים על ישראל, לא היה נשתייר ׳משונאיהן של ישראל׳ (לשון נקייה לישראל עצמם) שריד ופליט — מלשון ״בגדי השרד״, שמשיירים שריד.

He offers a homiletic interpretation: Were it not for the priestly vestments, which provide atonement for the Jewish people, there would not remain a remnant [sarid] or survivor from the haters of the Jewish people, a euphemism used to refer to the Jewish people themselves. Due to the atonement provided by the priestly vestments, a remnant [sarid] of the Jewish people does survive.

דרשה שנייה (ר׳ שמואל בר נחמני, דבי ר׳ שמעון): נקראו ׳בגדי השרד׳ לפי שנארגים שלמים על הנול (ולא חותכים ותופרים), ומשתייר מהם מעט שאינו נגמר באריגה. ומהו השריד? ריש לקיש: זה מעשה המחט הנדרש להשלמת הבגד.

Another interpretation: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that the school of Rabbi Shimon taught: The priestly vestments are referred to as “serad garments” because they are garments that are woven in their completed form upon the loom, as opposed to weaving the material and then cutting and sewing pieces of the material together to create the required form, and then just a small part of them remains [masridin] which is not completed upon the loom. What is the remnant, the part that was not woven? Reish Lakish said: This is the needle-work required to complete the garment.

מיתיבי על ריש לקיש: בגדי כהונה אין עושים מעשה מחט אלא מעשה אורג, שנאמר ״מעשה אורג״. תירוץ אביי: דברי ריש לקיש אמורים רק לגבי בית היד (השרוול). כדתניא: בית היד של בגדי כהונה נארגת בפני עצמה, ונדבקת (בתפירה) עם הבגד, ומגעת עד פיסת היד; אך גוף הבגד כולו מעשה אורג.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: Priestly vestments should not be made through needle-work but though woven work, as it is stated: “Woven work” (Exodus 28:32). The Gemara answers that Abaye said: Reish Lakish’s statement is necessary only for, i.e., refers only to, the sleeves. As it was taught in a baraita: A sleeve made for the priestly vestments is woven separately and then attached to the garment by sewing, and the sleeve is made to reach as far as the palm of the hand. However, the main body of the garment must indeed be made exclusively though weaving.

רחבה בשם רב יהודה: כדי שיהיה הארון מצופה זהב מבית ומחוץ, עשה בצלאל שלוש תיבות מקוננות — אמצעית של עץ בגובה תשעה טפחים, פנימית של זהב גובה שמונה, וחיצונה של זהב גובה עשרה ומשהו.

§ The Gemara cites statements concerning other Temple vessels: Raḥava said that Rav Yehuda said: The Torah states that the Ark should be made of wood with gold plating inside and out (Exodus 25:10–11). In order to achieve this Bezalel made three arks: A middle one made of wood, whose height was nine handbreadths; an inner one made of gold, whose height was eight handbreadths; and an outer one of gold, whose height was ten handbreadths and a bit. These arks were nested.

מיתיבי: והרי שנינו שהארון החיצון היה אחד עשר ומשהו! תירוץ: לא קשיא — ברייתא זו כדעה שעובי הזהב טפח (ולכן צריך אחד עשר), ורב יהודה כדעה שאין בעובי הזהב טפח (ודי בעשרה ומשהו). ומהו ה׳משהו׳? הזֵר (כתר הקישוט) שעל שפת הארון.

The Gemara asks: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the outer ark was eleven handbreadths and a bit? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement in the baraita is in accordance with the one who said that the thickness of the gold plating was one handbreadth. According to this opinion, the outer ark’s base took up one handbreadth of its height, ten handbreadths were then needed to contain the middle ark within it, and then a bit more was needed so it could also contain the Ark’s cover. That statement of Rav Yehuda is in accordance with the one who said that the thickness of the gold plating was not one handbreadth but was a plate of gold of negligible thickness. According to this opinion, the outer ark needed to be only ten handbreadths and a bit and could still contain the outer ark and have room for the cover. And what is this additional bit? It is the ornamental crown on the edge of the outer ark.

ר׳ יוחנן: שלושה זירים (כתרים) היו — של מזבח, של ארון ושל שולחן. זֵר המזבח מסמל כתר כהונה — זכה אהרן ונטלו; זֵר השולחן מסמל כתר מלכות — זכה דוד ונטלו; וזֵר הארון מסמל כתר תורה — עדיין מונח, וכל הרוצה ליטול יבוא ויטול. שמא תאמר פחות הוא — תלמוד לומר ״בי מלכים ימלוכו״, שכל הכתרים יונקים מכתר התורה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There were three crowns on the sacred vessels in the Temple: The crown of the altar, and of the Ark, and of the table. The regal appearance they provided symbolized power and authority: The crown of the altar symbolized the crown of priesthood; Aaron was deserving and took it, and the priesthood continues exclusively through his descendants. The crown of the table symbolized the abundance and blessing associated with the crown of kingship; David was deserving and took it for himself and his descendants after him. The crown of the Ark symbolized the crown of Torah; it is still sitting and waiting to be acquired, and anyone who wishes to take it may come and take it and be crowned with the crown of Torah. Perhaps you will say it is inferior to the other two crowns and that is why nobody has taken it; therefore, the verse states about the wisdom of Torah: “Through me kings will reign” (Proverbs 8:15), indicating that the strength of the other crowns is derived from the crown of Torah, which is greater than them all.

ר׳ יוחנן מקשה סתירה בכתיב/קרי: כתוב ״זָר״ (זר, מוזר) וקוראים ״זֵיר״ (כתר). יישוב: זכה — נעשית לו התורה זֵר (כתר); לא זכה — זרה (מתנכרת) ממנו וישכח לימודו.

§ The Gemara presents a number of statements based on the idea that the Ark symbolizes the Torah: Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction: According to the way the word crown is written in the Torah (Exodus 25:11), without vowels, it should be pronounced zar, meaning strange, but according to the traditional vocalization we read it as zeir, meaning crown. These two ways of understanding the word appear to contradict each other. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The two understandings apply to two different situations: If one is deserving by performing mitzvot, it becomes a crown [zeir] for him; but if one is not deserving, the Torah will be a stranger [zara] to him and he will forget his studies.

ר׳ יוחנן מקשה: כתוב ״ועשית לך ארון עץ״ (משה לבדו) וכתוב ״ועשו ארון עצי שטים״ (כל ישראל). יישוב: אף שמשה עשהו, הכל חייבים לסייע — ומכאן לתלמיד חכם, שבני עירו מצוּוים לעשות לו מלאכתו כדי שיתפנה לתורתו.

Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a contradiction: It is written: “And you shall make for yourself a wooden Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1), implying that Moses alone was commanded to construct the Ark; and it is written: “And they shall make an Ark of acacia wood” (Exodus 25:10), implying that the Jewish people were all commanded to be involved in its construction. The apparent resolution to this contradiction is that although only Moses actually constructed the Ark, everyone was required to support the endeavor. So too, from here it is derived with regard to a Torah scholar that the members of his town should perform his work for him to support him and allow him to focus on his studies, since it is also the town’s responsibility to enable him to study.

״מבית ומחוץ תצפנו״ (הארון מצופה זהב פנים וחוץ). רבא: כל תלמיד חכם שאין תוכו כברו — שאין פנימיותו תואמת לחיצוניותו — אינו תלמיד חכם.

The verse states concerning the Ark: “From within and from without you shall cover it” (Exodus 25:11). Rava said: This alludes to the idea that any Torah scholar whose inside is not like his outside, i.e., whose outward expression of righteousness is insincere, is not to be considered a Torah scholar.

אביי (ויש אומרים רבה בר עולא): כזה ת״ח לא רק שאינו ת״ח, אלא נקרא ׳נתעב׳, שנאמר ״אף כי נתעב ונאלח איש שותה כמים עוולה״ — אף ששותה תורה כמים, מאחר שחוטא תורתו עוולה.

Abaye said, and some say it was Rabba bar Ulla who said: Not only is such a person not to be considered a Torah scholar, but he is called loathsome, as it is stated: “What then of one loathsome and foul, man who drinks iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). Although he drinks the Torah like water, since he sins, his Torah is considered iniquitous and this makes him loathsome and foul.

ר׳ שמואל בר נחמני בשם ר׳ יונתן: ״למה זה מחיר ביד כסיל לקנות חכמה ולב אין״ — אוי להם לתלמידי חכמים (לשון נקייה) שעוסקים בתורה ואין בהם יראת שמים; כסילים הם, מבקשים חכמה ואין בלבם יראה לקנותה.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, as he has no heart?” (Proverbs 17:16)? This expresses the following sentiment: Woe to them, haters of Torah scholars, a euphemism for the Torah scholars themselves, who immerse themselves in Torah and have no fear of Heaven. They are fools; they try to acquire the wisdom of Torah, but since they have no fear of Heaven in their hearts they lack the ability to do so.

ר׳ ינאי מכריז: חבל על מי שאין לו חצר ובכל זאת עושה שער לחצרו. היראה היא החצר, ולימוד התורה הוא השער — ואין טעם בשער ללא חצר; הלימוד תכליתו להביא ליראה.

Rabbi Yannai declared that the situation may be expressed by the following sentiment: Pity him who has no courtyard but senselessly makes a gate for his courtyard. Fear of Heaven is like the courtyard, and the study of Torah is the gate that provides entrance to the courtyard. The study of Torah is purposeful only if it leads to fear of Heaven.

רבא לחכמי בית המדרש: בבקשה מכם, אל תירשו שני גיהינום — שהלומד תורה בלי יראת שמים מאבד את העולם הבא, וגם בעולם הזה סובל, שכל זמנו בלימוד ואינו נהנה מן העולם.

Rava said to the Sages in the study hall: I beg of you, do not inherit Gehenna twice. By studying Torah without the accompanying fear of Heaven, not only are you undeserving of the World-to-Come, but even in this world you experience Gehenna, as you spend all your time in study and fail to benefit from worldly pleasure.

ריב״ל: ״וזאת התורה אשר שָׂם משה״ — ׳שָׂם׳ (בשי״ן) רומז ל׳סם׳ (בסמ״ך): זכה — נעשית לו התורה סם חיים, לא זכה — סם מיתה. והיינו דברי רבא: למי שאומן בה (בקי ואוהבה) — סם חיים, ולמי שאינו אומן בה — סם מיתה.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And this is the Torah which Moses put [sam] before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44)? The word sam is written with the letter sin and means put; it is phonetically similar to the word sam written with the letter samekh, meaning a drug. This use of this word therefore alludes to the following: If one is deserving, the Torah becomes a potion [sam] of life for him. If one is not deserving, the Torah becomes a potion of death for him. And this idea is what Rava said: For one who is skillful in his study of Torah and immerses himself in it with love, it is a potion of life; but for one who is not skillful in his studies, it is a potion of death.

ר׳ שמואל בר נחמני בשם ר׳ יונתן מקשה: כתוב ״פיקודי ה׳ ישרים משמחי לב״ וכתוב ״אמרת ה׳ צרופה״ (מצרפת ביסורים). יישוב: זכה — משמחתו, לא זכה — צורפתו. ריש לקיש: מגוף הפסוק ׳צרופה׳ נדרש — זכה צורפתו לחיים, לא זכה צורפתו למיתה.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It was written: “The precepts of the Lord are upright, gladdening the heart” (Psalms 19:9), but it is also written: “The word of the Lord is refining” (Psalms 18:31), which implies that the study of Torah can be a distressing process by which a person is refined like metal smelted in a smith’s fire. He reconciles these verses as follows: For one who is deserving, the Torah gladdens him; for one who is not deserving, it refines him. Reish Lakish said: This lesson emerges from that second verse itself: For one who is deserving, the Torah refines him for life; for one who is not deserving, it refines him for death.

״יראת ה׳ טהורה עומדת לעד״. ר׳ חנינא: זה הלומד תורה בטהרה — שתורתו תתקיים בו לעד. ומהי לימוד בטהרה? נושא אשה תחילה ואחר כך לומד תורה, שאז לבו אינו טרוד בהרהורי עברה.

The verse states: “Fear of the Lord is pure, it stands forever” (Psalms 19:10). Rabbi Ḥanina said: This is referring to one who studies Torah in purity; for such a person the Torah will remain with him forever. What is this; what does it mean to study in purity? One first marries a woman and afterward studies Torah. Since he is married, his heart will not be occupied with thoughts of sin, which could lead him to become impure.

״עדות ה׳ נאמנה״. ר׳ חייא בר אבא: נאמנה התורה להעיד בלומדיה — מי לומדהּ ומי אינו.

In the same Psalm the verse states: “The testimony of God is faithful” (Psalms 19:8). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This alludes to the fact that the Torah is faithful to testify about those who study it and those who do not.

הגמרא שבה לדיון הכלים: על יריעות המשכן נאמר ״מעשה רוקם״ ונאמר ״מעשה חושב״. ר׳ אלעזר מיישב: שרוקמין במקום שחושבין — תחילה מציירים (חושבים) את הצורה, ואז רוקמים עליה.

The Gemara returns to its discussion concerning the sacred vessels: The verse states with regard to the covers for the Tabernacle that they are “work of an embroiderer” (Exodus 26:36), and it also states they are “work of a designer” (Exodus 26:31). How can both descriptions be reconciled? Rabbi Elazar said: They embroidered the place where they had designed. They first marked a design on the material in paint, and then they embroidered it.

תנא משום ר׳ נחמיה: ״רוקם״ — מעשה מחט, ולכן צורה אחת (אותה צורה בשני הצדדים). ״חושב״ — מעשה אורג, ולכן שתי צורות שונות בשני הצדדים.

A Sage taught in the name of Rabbi Neḥemya: “Work of an embroiderer” refers to needlework, which therefore produces only one face. The design is made with a needle passing back and forth from both sides of the curtain, and consequently an identical parallel image, or one face, is formed on both sides. “Work of a designer” refers to woven work, which therefore produces two faces. Although formed together, the two sides of the material were not identical; for example, sometimes an eagle appeared on one side while a lion was on the other side.

המשנה: בשמונה בגדים אלו נשאלין באורים ותומים. כי אתא רב דימי אמר: הבגדים שכהן גדול משמש בהם — אף משוח מלחמה (כהן המוזהר את העם לפני המלחמה) משמש בהם, שנאמר ״ובגדי הקודש אשר לאהרן יהיו לבניו אחריו״ — למי שבא בגדולה אחריו, היינו המשוח שדרגתו אחת פחותה מכה״ג.

§ It was taught in the mishna: When dressed in these eight garments, the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war serves. This priest is appointed to recite words of encouragement to the nation before it goes out to war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). As it is stated: “And the sacred garments of Aaron shall be for his sons after him” (Exodus 29:29), which is taken to refer to the one who comes after him in greatness, meaning the priest whose rank is one lower than the High Priest, i.e., the priest anointed for war.

מתיב רב אדא בר אהבה (ויש אומרים בלא שם): שנינו בברייתא — יכול יהא בנו של משוח מלחמה משמש תחתיו (יורש את מעמדו), כדרך שבנו של כהן גדול משמש תחתיו —

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection, and some say it unattributed: It is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the son of the priest anointed for war serves in his place, i.e., he inherits the position, in the same way that the son of a High Priest serves in his place if he is fit for the job;

המשך הברייתא: תלמוד לומר ״שבעת ימים ילבשם הכהן תחתיו מבניו אשר יבוא אל אהל מועד״ — רק מי שראוי לבוא אל אהל מועד (כהן גדול) בנו יורשו, ולא משוח מלחמה. ואם איתא לרב דימי שהמשוח משמש באותם בגדים — הרי גם הוא ראוי לבוא, ובנו אמור לרשת!

therefore, the verse states: “Seven days shall he wear them, the one who serves in his stead from among his sons, who comes into the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary” (Exodus 29:30). The verse describes a son serving in the place of his father, indicating that the position is inherited. The conclusion of the verse implies that the rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies only to a High Priest who is fit to enter the Tent of Meeting, but not to the priest anointed for war. Based on this baraita, the following challenge is posed: And if it is so, since the priest anointed for war also serves wearing the same garments as the High Priest, he is also fit to enter the Tent of Meeting and should bequeath his position to his son.

תירוץ רב נחמן בר יצחק: כך כוונת הברייתא — דין הירושה נוהג בכל מי שעיקר משיחתו לעבודת אהל מועד; יצא משוח מלחמה, שעיקר משיחתו למלחמה — ולכן בנו אינו יורש, ואין מכאן סתירה לרב דימי.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what the baraita is saying: The rule that a son inherits his father’s position applies to anyone for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is to come and serve in the Tent of Meeting. That excludes this priest for whom the primary purpose of his anointment is for war.

מיתיבי על רב דימי: שנינו בברייתא — משוח מלחמה אינו משמש לא בארבעה בגדים ככהן הדיוט, ולא בשמונה בגדים ככהן גדול.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Dimi’s claim: It was taught in a baraita that the priest anointed for war serves neither in four garments, like a common priest, nor in eight garments, like a High Priest.

תירוץ אביי: אם אינו לובש לא ככה״ג ולא כהדיוט — וכי תעשהו זר?! אלא: ככהן גדול אינו לובש מדרבנן משום אֵיבה (שלא לעורר קנאה), וככהן הדיוט אינו לובש משום ׳מעלין בקודש ואין מורידין׳ — שכבר עלה למעלת כה״ג; ומדאורייתא אכן לובש כמותו.

Abaye said to him: Would you make him like a non-priest? If he dresses like neither a High Priest nor a common priest, then effectively he is like a non-priest, but that is certainly not true. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is that the priest anointed for war does not dress like a High Priest due to the animosity that could be caused between him and the High Priest if they both wore similar garments. Therefore, although according to Torah law the priest anointed for war should dress like a High Priest, the Sages decreed that he should not, out of concern that animosity might result. And he does not dress like a common priest, due to the principle: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Since the priest anointed for war attained the level of sanctity of a High Priest, he may not now be demoted to serve as an ordinary priest and dress accordingly.

הקשה רב אדא בר אבא לרבא: והרי יש תנא בברייתא (להלן) שאין לו את חשש האֵיבה, ואף על פי כן משוח מלחמה אינו משמש בשמונה בגדים — משמע שהטעם אינו אֵיבה.

Rav Adda bar Abba said to Rava: But there is this tanna of the following baraita who does not accept the concern of animosity as a reason to prevent one from wearing similar garments, and yet even according to him the priest anointed for war does not serve wearing the eight garments. Clearly, there must be a different reason.

דתניא — הברייתא המונה ההבדלים בין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט: פר כהן משיח (הוא ׳פר הבא על כל המצוות׳, על הוראת טעות שיש בה כרת), פר יום הכיפורים, ועשירית האיפה (מנחת חביתין שמקריב כה״ג בכל יום) — קרבנות אלו רק כה״ג מביא.

As it was taught in a baraita: The matters in which there are differences between a High Priest and a common priest are as follows: The bull of the anointed priest, also called the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought for unwittingly deciding and following an erroneous halakhic ruling in a case for which one would be liable to receive the penalty of karet had he committed it intentionally; And the bull of Yom Kippur; And the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest offers each day. Only the High Priest brings the above offerings.

המשך הברייתא (דיני אבלות וכבוד כה״ג): אינו פורע (מגדל שיער) ואינו פורם (קורע בגדו) כדרך אבלים, אך פורם מלמטה (במקום שאינו ניכר), וההדיוט מלמעלה; ואינו מיטמא לקרוביו; ומצוּוה לישא בתולה; ומוזהר שלא לישא אלמנה; ומיתתו מחזירה את הרוצח מעיר המקלט.

In addition, when in mourning, a High Priest does not let his hair grow wild, nor does he rend his clothing in the way other mourners do. But he does rend his clothing from below, in a place that is not noticeable, while the common priest rends from above in the normal manner. And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives, but a common priest may. And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow, in contrast to a common priest who is prohibited to marry only a divorcee. And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge.

המשך: מקריב אונן (ביום מות קרובו) אך אינו אוכל מן הקדשים ואינו חולק; נוטל חלק בראש (תחילה) ומקריב חלק בראש; משמש בשמונה כלים (בגדים); פטור על טומאת מקדש וקודשיו; וכל עבודות יום הכיפורים כשרות רק בו.

And he sacrifices offerings even when he is an acute mourner, i.e., on the first day of his mourning, but he may not eat from the offerings on that day and he may not take a portion from them. And he takes his portion first from any offering of his choice. And he has the first right to sacrifice any offering he wants. And he serves wearing eight garments. And he is exempt from bringing an offering for unwittingly causing ritual impurity to the Temple and its sacred objects. And all parts of the Yom Kippur service are valid only when performed by him.

וכל ההלכות הללו נוהגות גם ב׳מרובה בגדים׳ — כהן גדול שנתרבה בשמונה הבגדים בלבד (בלא שמן המשחה, כבבית שני) — חוץ מפר הבא על כל המצוות, שמביאו רק כהן המשוח בשמן.

And all these halakhot unique to the High Priest are not limited to one who was consecrated with anointing oil, but apply also to a High Priest of many garments. During the Second Temple period, when the oil used for anointing was no longer available for anointing High Priests, the High Priests were consecrated by virtue of wearing the eight garments. This is true except with regard to the bull brought for all the mitzvot, which is brought only by a High Priest consecrated with anointing oil.

וכולן נוהגות גם בכהן גדול ׳משוח שעבר׳ — שמינוהו במקום כה״ג שנפסל וחזר הראשון — שעדיין קדושת כה״ג עליו; חוץ מפר יום הכיפורים ועשירית האיפה, שאינו מקריבם כשאינו משמש בפועל.

And all these halakhot apply to a former High Priest who had been consecrated to substitute for a High Priest who had become disqualified. If the disqualification of the original High Priest is removed, he may return to his position. Although the substitute no longer serves as a High Priest, he retains the sanctity of a High Priest and the halakhot of the High Priest continue to apply to him. This is true except with regard to the sacrifice of the bull on Yom Kippur and the sacrifice of the tenth of an ephah each day.

וכולן אינן נוהגות במשוח מלחמה, חוץ מחמישה דברים האמורים בפרשת הכהן הגדול: אינו פורע ואינו פורם, אינו מיטמא לקרוביו, מצוּוה על הבתולה, ומוזהר על האלמנה; ומחזיר את הרוצח — לדברי ר׳ יהודה; וחכמים אומרים אינו מחזיר. (כיוון שברייתא זו מחילה דיני כה״ג גם על ׳משוח שעבר׳ הלובש שמונה בגדים, מוכח שאין לתנא חשש אֵיבה, ובכל זאת המשוח מלחמה אינו משמש בהם.)

And none of them applies to the priest anointed for war, except for the five items stated explicitly in the passage about the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10–15): When in mourning, he does not let his hair grow wild nor does he rend his clothing in the way regular mourners do. And he may not become ritually impure in the event of the death of his close relatives. And he is commanded to marry a virgin, and he is prohibited from marrying a widow. And his death allows the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda in tractate Makkot (11a). And the Rabbis say: His death does not allow the return of the accidental killer from the city of refuge. The baraita teaches that a former High Priest also wears the eight garments of the High Priest. It is therefore apparent that the tanna of the baraita is not concerned about animosity which could be caused if the High Priest and the former High Priest wear similar garments. Despite this, the baraita agrees that the priest anointed for war does not wear the eight garments. This suggests that the reason for this is not out of concern that animosity might result.

דחיית הראיה: כשאין לתנא חשש אֵיבה — היינו דווקא במי שדומה לכה״ג (משוח שעבר, באותה דרגה); אבל במי שנמוך ממנו (משוח מלחמה) — יש אֵיבה. ושוב אין סתירה לטעם אביי.

The Gemara rejects this proof: When the High Priest has no animosity toward someone else wearing the same garments, it is only where that person is similar to him, such as a former High Priest who held the same rank. But toward someone inferior to him who wears the same garments, such as the priest anointed for war, he does feel animosity.

מעשה: ישב ר׳ אבהו ואמר שמועה זו של רב דימי (שמשוח מלחמה משמש בבגדי כה״ג) משם ר׳ יוחנן. החזירו ר׳ אמי ור׳ אסי את פניהם (לאות חולק). ויש אומרים: ר׳ חייא בר אבא אמרהּ, ואליו החזירו ר׳ אמי ור׳ אסי את פניהם.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu was sitting before the Sages and saying this halakha of Rav Dimi, that the priest anointed for war serves in the same garments as the High Priest, in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces away to show that they disagreed. Some say it was not Rabbi Abbahu but Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said it, and it was away from him that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces.

מתקיף רב פפא על הלשון השנייה: בשלמא אם ר׳ אבהו אמרהּ — מובן שלא אמרו לו במפורש שחולקים, מפני כבוד בית הקיסר (שהיה ר׳ אבהו מקורב למלכות); אבל אם ר׳ חייא בר אבא אמרהּ — היו אומרים לו במפורש: לא אמר ר׳ יוחנן כך. ולכן הלשון הראשונה עיקר.

Rav Pappa strongly objects to the alternative account: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Abbahu reported the halakha, it is understandable that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not state outright that they disagreed with him due to the honor of the house of the caesar, as Rabbi Abbahu was close to the government (see Ḥagiga 14a). But if the alternative account were true, then they should have said outright to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba that they held that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this, since there would have been no reason not to have done so. Therefore, Rav Pappa claimed this account must be incorrect.

מסקנה (כי אתא רבין): השמועה נאמרה בלשון ׳נשאל׳ ולא ׳משמש׳ — משוח מלחמה לובש שמונה בגדים רק כדי להישאל בהם באורים ותומים, אך לעולם אינו משמש בהם. תניא נמי הכי: הבגדים שכהן גדול משמש בהן — משוח מלחמה נשאל בהן.

The Gemara cites an opinion that conflicts with that of Rav Dimi: When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: The teaching that the priest anointed for war wears the eight garments of the High Priest was stated only with regard to being consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. To be consulted he must wear all eight garments; however, he never serves in them. That was also taught in a baraita: The garments in which the High Priest serves are also worn when the priest anointed for war is consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim.