OPINIONS: The Mishnah earlier (8b) records an argument between Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the Beis Din and the Nasi are not obligated to bring a Korban for transgressing the Isurim which mandate a Korban Oleh v'Yored -- the Isur of Shemi'as Kol, the Isur of Bituy Sefasayim, and the Isur of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi Akiva maintains that the Nasi is obligated to bring his special Korban for transgressing these Isurim, except for the Isur of Shemi'as Kol, since the Nasi is never called upon to give testimony as a witness.

The Mishnah (9a) continues with an argument between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Shimon says that only Beis Din is exempt from these three Korbanos of Oleh v'Yored. An ordinary person, a Nasi, and a Kohen Gadol are all obligated to bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored for transgressing these Isurim, with the only exception being that a Kohen Gadol does not have to bring a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi Eliezer states that the Nasi brings a Se'ir (and not an Oleh v'Yored), as he does for transgressing any other Isur Kares. Are these four Tana'im -- Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, Rebbi Akiva, Rebbi Shimon, and Rebbi Eliezer -- arguing with each other?

(a) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Eliezer do not necessarily argue with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva. These two Mishnayos are discussing different subjects. The first Mishnah (8b) is discussing the obligation for Beis Din to bring a Par He'elem Davar, or for the Nasi to bring a Se'ir, for these transgressions. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that they are exempt from bringing their special Korbanos. They still might be obligated, however, to bring a normal Korban Oleh v'Yored. That is the topic of the Mishnah here (9a), in which Rebbi Shimon says that Beis Din brings no Korban (not even a normal Oleh v'Yored), while a Nasi brings an Oleh v'Yored, and Rebbi Eliezer says that a Nasi brings his normal Korban of a Se'ir. (Accordingly, Rebbi Eliezer certainly argues with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, but not necessarily with Rebbi Akiva. Rebbi Shimon might not be arguing with either Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili or Rebbi Akiva.)

However, in the YAD HA'CHAZAKAH (Hilchos Shegagos 10:7), the Rambam makes a statement which is problematic. He rules that both a Nasi and a Kohen Gadol must bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored for these three transgressions. This ruling is closest to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who says that a Kohen Gadol and Nasi bring an Oleh v'Yored, except that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. The RA'AVAD argues that the Nasi is not obligated to bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol (since he does not give testimony), and the Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav (as Rebbi Shimon states). What is the source for the Rambam's ruling?

The KEREN ORAH explains that the Rambam understands the Mishnah differently from Rashi and the Ra'avad (as is apparent from his explanation in Perush ha'Mishnayos). The Rambam understands that the first part of the Mishnah -- which says that for these three transgressions, "Beis Din is exempt, and an ordinary person, Nasi, and [Kohen] Mashi'ach are obligated" -- is the end of a statement by the Tana Kama. The Tana Kama maintains that an ordinary person, the Nasi, and the Kohen Gadol are always obligated to bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored, for every one of these three Isurim. The Mishnah then quotes Rebbi Shimon who argues that "the Kohen Gadol Mashi'ach is not obligated [to bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored] for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav." The Rambam rules in accordance with the view of the Tana Kama.

(b) The RA'AVAD learns the Mishnah like Rashi does. RASHI (DH Rebbi Eliezer) indeed understands that these four Tana'im argue with each other. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that a Nasi and Kohen Gadol are exempt from bringing Korbanos for these three Isurim. While Rebbi Akiva agrees that a Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban Oleh v'Yored, he maintains that the Kohen Gadol must bring his usual Korban of a Par for these transgressions. Rebbi Akiva also maintains that a Nasi is exempt only from Shemi'as Kol. Rebbi Shimon argues and maintains that both the Nasi and the Kohen Gadol are obligated to bring an Oleh v'Yored, except that a Kohen Gadol is exempt in the case of Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Rebbi Eliezer follows the view of Rebbi Shimon, but he argues that the Nasi brings a Se'ir, and not an Oleh v'Yored, for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav (see Gemara 9b).

Since the Ra'avad learns that there is no Tana Kama in the Mishnah, there is no opinion that states that a Kohen Gadol brings an Oleh v'Yored for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. Moreover, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili and Rebbi Akiva agree that the Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol. The Keren Orah asserts that the Ra'avad learns that Rebbi Shimon also agrees that a Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol. This seems difficult, however, because Rebbi Shimon does not clarify that a Nasi is exempt from Shemi'as Kol. The Keren Orah suggests that this part of the Ra'avad's ruling is actually the correct text of the Yerushalmi (2:7, the opposite of the printed text of the standard Yerushalmi). According to his Girsa of the Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi says, "[The law] that the Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol is agreed upon by all. And [the law] that the Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban on Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav is according to Rebbi Shimon." Even according to our text of the Yerushalmi, the Yerushalmi is also a difficulty on the Rambam's opinion, because it states that according to all opinions the Kohen Gadol does not bring a Korban for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. (See MAREH HA'PANIM on the Yerushalmi.)

The TOSFOS YOM TOV apparently learns that the Ra'avad agrees with Rashi that the two Mishnayos are similar, and that there is no Tana that rules that a Kohen Gadol brings an Oleh v'Yored for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav. The reason why the Ra'avad says that the Nasi does not bring an Oleh v'Yored for Shemi'as Kol is that he rules like Rebbi Akiva (see KESEF MISHNEH, Hilchos Shegagos 10:7).

(Although we have explained the opinion of Rashi (in DH Rebbi Eliezer), Rashi earlier makes a statement that is not clear. Rashi (DH u'Mah Hen Mevi'in) states that the question at the end of the Mishnah is what Korban does a Nasi bring for Bituy Sefasayim and for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav, and what does a Kohen Gadol bring for Shemi'as Kol and for Bituy Sefasayim. Rashi there implies that he learns that Rebbi Shimon agrees that a Nasi does not bring a Korban for Shemi'as Kol (like the Keren Orah's understanding of the Ra'avad). This is an apparent contradiction to the other comment of Rashi (DH Rebbi Eliezer), in which Rashi states that Rebbi Shimon rules that the only exemption is a Kohen Gadol from Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodashav, and he makes no mention of the exemption of a Nasi. This apparently is the question of the Tosfos Yom Tov when he says, "I did not understand Rashi's words on this matter.") (Y. MONTROSE)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that whether a Kohen Gadol sinned and then was "Avar mi'Meshichuso" (lit. "removed from his appointed position"), or if he was "Avar mi'Meshichuso" and then sinned, he brings the special Par Kohen Gadol and not an ordinary Korban Chatas.

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shegagos 15:7) writes that the words "Avar mi'Meshichuso" refer to a Kohen Gadol who was removed permanently from his position due, for example, to a Mum (blemish) or because of old age. The former Kohen Gadol still brings the special Par Kohen Gadol. The Rambam adds that the reason for this is the dictum of the Mishnah (11b) which states, "There is no difference between an active Kohen Gadol and a retired one aside from the Par of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an Eifah (brought every day), which are brought only by the active Kohen Gadol." However, they are equal in all other respects, including the Par Kohen Gadol.

The LECHEM MISHNEH is perplexed by the words of the Rambam. It seems that the Rambam understands that the case of the Mishnah later (11b) which discusses a Kohen "she'Avar" is the same as the case of the Mishnah here (11b) which discusses a Kohen "she'Avar mi'Meshichuso." That is, according to the Rambam, the Mishnah later states that the only difference between the Kohen Gadol who was removed from his position permanently due to a Mum or old age, and the active Kohen Gadol, is the Par of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an Eifah. However, the Mishnah cannot be talking about such Kohanim, because a Kohen with a Mum may not perform any Avodah at all, and certainly not the Avodah of Yom Kippur!

Moreover, the Gemara later (12b) explains that the teaching of the Mishnah there (on 11b) regarding a Kohen she'Avar follows the view of Rebbi Meir, who rules that if a Kohen Gadol becomes temporarily unfit for work and another Kohen is appointed in his place, the first one returns to his position when he becomes fit again, while the second one becomes a "Kohen Gadol she'Avar" and retains the status of a Kohen Gadol for most matters. That is, the Gemara explicitly says that the case of "Kohen Gadol she'Avar" is the case of a Kohen who no longer serves as a full Kohen Gadol, but he is fit to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Why does the Rambam explain that the Mishnah there is discussing a Kohen who has a blemish or is too old to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash?

Finally, the Rambam (Hilchos Yom ha'Kipurim 1:3) rules like Rebbi Yosi who argues with Rebbi Meir with regard to the law of the Mishnah (on 11b). Why, then, does the Rambam quote as Halachah this Mishnah, which follows the view of Rebbi Meir?

(a) The TIFERES YISRAEL here explains that the case of the Mishnah (on 11b) is certainly meant to be understood as the Gemara explains it. However, the interpretation of the Rambam for the ruling of the Mishnah here is also correct; a Kohen Gadol with a Mum also retains his Kedushah. The Tiferes Yisrael's proof for this is the Gemara later (12b), which mentions that even a permanently disabled Kohen Gadol is prohibited from marrying an Almanah, a widow. If the prohibition against marrying an Almanah applies to him (as if he were a full-fledged Kohen Gadol), it stands to reason that the obligation to bring a Par Kohen Gadol applies to him as well.

However, the TIFERES YAKOV points out that this does not really answer the Lechem Mishneh's question. Although it is true that the Kohen Gadol with a Mum retains his Kedushah, why does the Rambam imply that the two Mishnayos are discussing the same case, if the Mishnah there is discussing a Kohen who is fit to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash? The questions of the Lechem Mishneh remain.

(b) The TZVI TIFERES and KEREN ORAH answer that the Rambam certainly agrees with the obvious fact that the Mishnah (on 11b) is discussing a Kohen Gadol who is still fit to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Mishnah here, on the other hand, is discussing even a Kohen Gadol with a permanent disability. Why, then, does the Rambam seem to equate the two Mishnayos?

They explain that the Rambam is simply taking the wording of the other Mishnah and applying it to the law in this Mishnah. The point of the Mishnah (on 11b) is that once a Kohen serves even temporarily as a Kohen Gadol, he retains forever the Kedushah of a Kohen Gadol. Although, in the Mishnah there, the Kohen Gadol is still fit to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash, the Rambam infers from there that a Kohen Gadol cannot lose his Kedushah due to the principle of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin" (the level of Kedushah must be raised and may not be lowered). That lesson of the Mishnah explains why even a disabled Kohen Gadol still brings a Par, for he retains the Kedushah of a Kohen Gadol.

This also answers why the Rambam uses the wording of the Mishnah even though the Mishnah itself follows the non-Halachic opinion of Rebbi Meir. The Rambam is not saying that the law of the Mishnah is the Halachah. Rather, he is teaching the principle which is expressed in those words of the Mishnah -- namely, that a Kohen Gadol always retains his Kedushah because of "Ma'alin b'Kodesh v'Lo Moridin." This principle is true according to both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yosi. (See also MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH on the Rambam, and TOSFOS YOM TOV 3:2.) (Y. MONTROSE)