<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כהן גדול</strong></big><br><br>
but if he has drunkmore, the walk will only cause more fatigue, and the sleep more drunkenness! R. Ashi said: Since those drunk with wine defile the service [if they officiate],the Rabbis enacted that precautionarymeasure;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even at this day Priests may not drink lest the
Temple be suddenly rebuilt and their services needed.
');"><sup>24</sup></span> but seeing that those withlong hair do not defile the service, they made no decree against them. An objection is raised: The following [priests] are liable to death: thosewho let their hair grow and those who are drunk withwine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ker. I.
');"><sup>25</sup></span> Now, as for those drunk withwine, it is correct, because it is written, Drink no wine nor strong drink,thou nor thy sons with thee, that ye dienot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. X, 9.
');"><sup>26</sup></span> But whence do we know it ofthose with long hair? — Because the former is assimilated to the latter,for it is written, Neither shall they shave their heads nor suffer theirlocks to grow long, which is followed by, Neither shall they drink wine etc.Hence, just as drunkenness [during the service] is punishable by death, sois the growth of long hair. And it also follows, just as drunkenness defilesthe Temple service, so does the growing of longhair!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, on this premise, it should be forbidden even
to-day?
');"><sup>27</sup></span> This is adifficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ta'an. 17b and v. p. 128, n. 1.
');"><sup>28</sup></span> Rabina said to R. Ashi: Before Ezekiel came, and told us this [that thosewho let their hair grow and officiate thus are punishable by death], whostated it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, if there was no source, the offence could not
be punishable thus.
');"><sup>29</sup></span> — But according to yourview,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a previous source was required.
');"><sup>30</sup></span> what of R. Hisda's statement,[viz.,] This law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That an uncircumcised priest is incompetent to serve
in the Temple.
');"><sup>31</sup></span> was not learntfrom the teaching of Moses our teacher, until Ezekiel came and taught, Noalien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh shall enter intomy Sanctuary to serve me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XLIV, 9.
');"><sup>32</sup></span> But beforeEzekiel came, who stated it? Consequently, it must have been a tradition,and then Ezekiel came and found a support for it in Scripture [i.e., thePentateuch]. Similarly, here too, [in the question of hair-growth] it wasa traditional teaching, and Ezekiel merely upheld it in the passage quoted[further, the <i>Halachah</i>, as handed down, states only that they are liableto death, but not that they defile theTemple-service].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' S. Luria deletes the bracketed passage. [This is indeed
the reply given in Ta'an 17b to the question which is here left unanswered
supra 127, v. n. 5.]
');"><sup>33</sup></span> What is the meaning of, They shall only poll their heads? — A Tanna taught:Hair cut in the Julian style.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The reference is not clear, v. Krauss, op. cit. I,
644]
');"><sup>34</sup></span> Whatwas that? — Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: A unique manner of hairdressing.Yet what was it like? R. Ashi said: The ends of one row [of hair] lay alongsidethe roots of the next. Rabbi was asked: In what fashion was the hair of the High Priest cut? —He answered: Go and observe the haircut of BenEleasa.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi's son-in-law.
');"><sup>35</sup></span> It has been taught: Notfor nothing did Ben Eleasa expend money so lavishly upon his hairdressing,but to display the High-Priestly fashion.
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 22b) that the prohibition of growing locks with the common priests is only at the time of entering the Temple. But anytime that the common priest does not enter the Temple, he is not [transgressing] the prohibition of growing locks at all. But because the high priest is constantly in the Temple, he is always forbidden to grow locks - as if you were to say, that if by way of duress he stays outside of the Temple a few days, he is nonetheless obligated to not grow locks. And how [long] is the growing of locks? Thirty days, like the nazirite - as undifferentiated naziriteship is no less thirty days. And the rest of its details are elucidated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
It is from the roots of the commandment [that it is] since the essence of good in a person is that he have thoughts of purity and cleanliness - for after the thoughts are the deeds of bodies drawn. Therefore it is fitting for the highest servant to cling to a woman who has never fixed her thought towards another man besides him who is Holy of Holies. And through that, the seed that God, may He be blessed, gives him from her will be pure and clean; fitting to serve in holiness. And lest you say, "And who knows if the virgin has also fixed her thought towards a man besides him and set her eyes on another," the answer to this is that for as long as the thought has not gone from the potential to the actual, she is not disqualified. But anytime she had intercourse with him, she is disqualified. And even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 59a) that when she becomes an adult, she is prohibited to him, the matter is that once she has matured so much, the thought of her impulse is only evil; and perhaps she fixed her thought towards another. And from when she is an adult, her evil thought counts as an act. And so [too,] from this reason did they say (Yevamot 59a) that if she was widowed from betrothal - even as a minor - she is forbidden to the [high] priest. As from when the act of designation (kiddushin) was done with her, she already fixed her thought towards another man via the act of betrothal and was [so] disqualified - as an act disqualifies even with minors, and thought [does] with adults. And likewise they said (Yevamot 59a) that if she had intercourse not in her (customary) way, she is also disqualified - as she already did a big act, even though her virginity (hymen) is intact. And so [too,] they said (Yevamot 59a) that even [if she is one] struck by wood (on her hymen), she is disqualified. And the reason with her is apparently that she will not fix her thought greatly on the high priest. As once she lost her virginity, she does not cut (form) a strong covenant with a man ever. And [this is] similar to that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 22b) that a woman only cuts a covenant with one who 'makes her a vessel' - and behold, this one did not 'make her a vessel.' However they, may their memory be blessed, were not very stringent with these [laws], and they said (Yevamot 60a) that if he married an adult or one struck by wood, he keeps [the marriage], ex post facto.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
It is from the roots of the commandment [that] since woman was created to help man and she is like a beloved vessel for him - and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 22b), "A woman only makes a covenant with the one who makes her into a vessel" - since that is the case, it was from His will, blessed be He, that anytime his soul be sick of this vessel, that he should put her out of his house. And for this reason, there are some of our Rabbis that say in the gemara (Gittin 90a) that he can divorce her even if she burnt his cooked food - meaning to say, even for a small thing - since she is only like a valuable vessel in the home. And there are some of them that say that since this vessel is in His image and His likeness, and God granted to her - for his need and his honor - eyes to see, ears to hear and an intelligent soul, it is only fit for him to put her out and send her away from him for a large claim, and as the matter that is stated in the verse, "because he finds something lewd about her." However, according to everyone, if he finds a big thing, it is fit for him to divorce her for the reason that I mentioned - since she was only created for his sake. And since she is a bitter spirit for him and his soul despises her, he is under no compulsion to be with her in any case (as do some of the nations, who make a covenant with a woman [that is] a strong covenant until [one of them reaches] the grave below; and [so] she does not fear separation if she is licentious in his eyes and destroys everything in the house and burns everything that he has with fire - from the heaps to the standing grain to the olive grove). Nonetheless, the Torah commanded us that when we send her away, that he not send her away with speech alone, lest this be a stumbling block for us and it become a snare - that there be licentiousness among our nation, such that the adulterer claim that her husband divorced her; and also that divorce be very prevalent. Accordingly, now that we have been obligated to write the words in a book and to have witnesses testify, any [woman] that claims to be divorced, must show a deed [to that effect]. And there is also [another] benefit in the matter - as through this, sometimes the man will calm down and regret from [wanting to] divorce her. And 'great is peace.'
