Bartenura on Mishnah Horayot

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Nezikin · 88 sections

1.1.1
הורו בית דין לעבור – that they said to the people that you are permitted to do a certain thing/act which one is liable for [the punishment of] extirpation for willful/premeditated violation.
1.1.2
והלך היחיד ועשה – Our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Yehuda who said that an individual who acted with the instruction/teaching of the Jewish court is exempt [from liability]. But this is not the Halakha, but rather it is [according to] the Sages who state that an individual who acted with the instruction/teaching of the Jewish court is liable, and is not exempt until those who act according to the Jewish court are the majority of those who dwell in the Land of Israel or most of the tribes, and then the Jewish court would bring a bullock for an unwitting communal sin, and those who act through their pronouncement are exempt.
1.1.3
שוגג על פיהם – to exclude the case where he did not rely upon the teaching of the Jewish court, such as the case where the Jewish court taught that forbidden fat of an animal is permissible, and the forbidden fat is switched with the permitted fat of animals and they consumed it, where that individual is liable, for he did not consume it by the word of the Jewish court.
1.1.4
בין שלא עשו – the Jewish court itself [did not] perform an act upon the word of their teachings, he is exempt, and they are liable, for a Jewish court only brings a sacrifice on the inadvertent teaching, for the deed is dependent upon the community and the teaching of the Jewish court.
1.1.5
הרי זה חייב מפני שלא תלה בבית דין – and even though it was a willful/premeditated violation, for he knew that they erred and despite this, he acted according to their words. But a willful/premeditated violation does not require a sacrifice, for we state in the Gemara (Tractate Horayot 2a) that it is an inadvertent act, for he thought that it was a Mitzvah to act by the word of the Jewish court and even if he knew that they erred.
1.1.6
זה הכלל – to include one who rebels against the teaching, for it is not his manner to act according to their teaching, and he acted according to the teaching of the Jewish court, not because he relied upon their teaching but rather because it appeared to him in his mind that this [act] was permissible, he is liable.
1.2.1
ר' שמעון פוטר – since their ruling had spread through the majority of the community.
1.2.2
ר' אליעזר אומר ספק – for since he should have asked at all times on the words when they were established as a new interpretation in the Jewish court and he did not ask, for this is like someone who had been doubtful if he had sinned or had not sinned, he brings the uncertain guilt-offering. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer.
1.2.3
איזהו ספק – that is to say, what does Rabbi Eliezer say when he is judged as one who is doubtful if he sinned or did not sin and he is liable to bring an uncertain guilt-offering.
1.2.4
ביושב בביתו – when he sits in his house in the district/province where the Jewish court ruled on it, where it was possible that he would have heard that the Jewish court retracted from their teachings.
1.2.5
אבל הלך לו למדינת הים – and not specifically that he went [abroad], but he accounted as meritorious to go on that path even though he did not yet go, and Rabbi Akiba holds that because he was anxiety to go out on the path, he does not ask if the Jewish court had retracted [their opinion], and he is exempt from the uncertain guilt-offering. But Ben Azzai holds, for since he had not yet gone, he should have asked. And in this, they establish their dispute in the Gemara (Tractate Horayot 4a), and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba.
1.3.1
לעקור את כל הגוף – all the essence of the Mitzvah, as will be explained further on.
1.3.2
הרי אלו פטורים – as it is written (Leviticus 4:13): “and the matter escapes [the notice of the congregation],” he calls it “it escapes from the matter,” part of the matter and not all of it.
1.3.3
אבל הבא על שומרת יום כנגד יום פטור – In the Gemara (Tractate Horayot 4a), he raises an objection for behold a woman who observes a day for day, for in the Torah it is written (Leviticus 15:28): “[When she becomes purified of her discharge,] she shall count off [seven days, and after that she shall be pure].” But it is explained in the Gemara (Tractate Horayot 4a), such as the case where they say that a woman did not have her flux other than in the daytime, that is to say, when she sees blood during the day time and not when she sees it at night, as it is written (Leviticus 15:26): “while her discharge lasts [shall be for her like bedding during her menstrual impurity]..”
1.3.4
המוצא מרשות היחיד לרשות הרבים פטור – as they state that bringing in and taking out is prohibited, as it is written (Exodus 16:29): “let no one leave his place on the seventh day, handing over and throwing are permitted.
1.3.5
המשתחוה פטור – for they say that one who prostrates accompanied by stretching of hands and feet is prohibited, as it is written (Exodus 34:14): “For you must not worship any other god,” but that which lacks stretching hands and feet is permitted. The principle of the matter is that a Jewish court is not liable until they rule in a matter which the Sadducees do not agree with. But if they ruled in a matter that the Sadducees agree with, they are exempt from a community sacrifice, and the majority who act on their words, every individual is liable to bring a sacrifice on his inadvertent action. What is the reason? It is a case of go call the house of the teacher.
1.4.1
וידע אחד מהן שטעו וכו' – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 4:13): “If it is the whole community of Israel that has erred,” until that all of them would agree with the inadvertent error.
1.4.2
מופלא של בית דין – the greatest of them, head of the Academy.
1.4.3
זקן שלא ראה בנים – he is not worthy of judging capital crimes, since it was concealed that he is cruel and he will not be compassionate.
1.4.4
ונאמר להלן עדה – (Numbers 35:24): “in such cases the assembly shall decide [between the slayer and the blood-avenger].”
1.4.5
מה העדה האמורה להן וכו' – regarding the Sanhedrin it is stated (Numbers 11:16): “and let them take their place there with you,” who are similar to you, of distinguished birth like you. This excludes the convert, the Nattin/water-drawer and the one of illegitimate birth/Mamzer who are not worthy of being appointed to the Sanhedrin.
1.4.6
מזידין – the Jewish court knew that the matter was prohibited, they are exempt from the community sacrifice, for one who acts willfully is not one who brings a sacrifice, but those who act inadvertently bring a lamb or a goat as an individual sin-offering.
1.4.7
שוגגים ועשו מזידין אלו ואלו פטורים – the Jewish court is exempt, for the community did not act by the word of their teaching, and their deeds did not depend upon the Jewish court, for they knew that the Jewish court had erred. And all who act are exempt, for they are willful sinners and someone who acts willfully is not one who brings a sacrifice.
1.5.1
מביאין פר – which is stated in Leviticus (4:14): “the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a purification offering…”
1.5.2
ובעבודה זרה מביאים פר ושעיר – but if they taught to permit the prohibited idolatrous worship, they bring a bullock and a goat that is stated in the Torah portion of Shelach Lecha (Numbers 15:22): “If you unwittingly fail t o observe any one of he commandments,” a Mitzvah which is of equal importance corresponding to all of the commandments, he would say, this is idolatrous worship, and it is written there (Numbers 15:24): “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as a burnt offering [of pleasing odor to the LORD, with its proper grain offering an libation], and one he-goat as a purification offering.” But Rabbi Meir holds that this “the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a purification offering” (Leviticus 4:14) is for inadvertent performance of the other sins, and similarly, “the whole community shall present one bull of the herd…and one he-goat as a purification offering” (Numbers 15:24), which is stated in Shelach Lecha, is for inadvertent performance of idolatrous worship, the community which ruled/taught alone are those who bring them, and this is the Great Jewish court.
1.5.3
שנים שער שבטים מביאין – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that each and every tribe is called a congregation/community, as it states (II Chronicles 20:5): “Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah [and Jerusalem in the House of the LORD at the front of the new court].”
1.5.4
שלשה עשר פרים 0 for Rabbi Shimon holds that the Jewish court that erred in their teaching does not atone with bullocks and goats of the tribes, but they are liable to bring a bullock and a goat for themselves.
1.5.5
שבעה שבטים – for they are the majority of the number of tribes, and even though they are the minority of [the total] of Israel. Or, the majority of the number of tribes and even though they are from the minority of the number of tribes, and even if one tribe acted [in error] and it is the majority of the Jewish people. All of the other tribes that did not sin brings at the hands of those who sinned.
1.5.6
שמונה פרים – for Rabbi Shimon holds that those who did not sin do not bring at the hands of those who did sin. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
1.5.7
ועשה אותו שבט – for itself, and here there is no majority of the number of the Israelites nor is there a majority of tribes.
1.5.8
וחכמים אומרים אין חייבים וכו'- And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
2.1.1
הורה כהן משיח – a High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil who taught a permissible act for himself, and performed an action on his own in a matter where one is liable for extirpation on a willful act.
2.2.1
מתכפר לו בפני עצמו – he is required to bring a bull on his own.
2.2.2
הורה עם הצבור – that he was one of the Sanhedrin that erred in their teaching.
2.2.3
מתכפר לו עם הצבור – with the bull for the sin where the matter escapes the notice of the congregation, and he does not need another sacrifice, for I might think that just as on Yom Kippur, he does not atone with the congregation, for it is written (Leviticus 16:11): “He shall slaughter his bull of purification offering,” here too, he needs to make a sacrifice on his own, but this comes to teach us that this is not the case. And we derive this from the Biblical verse as it is written (Leviticus 4:3): “he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty [a bull of the herd without blemish as a purification offering to the LORD]” (see also Talmud Horayot 7a), for the sin that is unique to him he brings a sacrifice of its own, and for the sin that is not unique to him, he does not bring its own sacrifice.
2.2.4
שאין בית דין חייבין – that is to say, it is the law that the anointed [priest] atones with the community, for the Jewish court is not liable and neither is the anointed [priest], so we see, that the anointed priest and the Jewish court are compared in all its matters, and if so, when he taught [in err] with the community, it is the law that he is compared with the community and atones with the community.
2.2.5
ולא בעבודה זרה עד שיורו לבטל מקצת – because it is stated with the other commandments (Leviticus 4:13): “and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation,” and it is stated in regard to idolatry (Numbers 15:24): “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community,” just as with regard to the other commandments that something escaped and not the entire body of the commandment, so too, with regard to idolatrous worship, a matter, but not the entire body [of the commandment] (see Talmud Horayot 7b).
2.3.1
אין חייבין אלא על העלם דבר – a Jewish court that erroneously taught to the community about one of the commandments, they are not obligated to bring a bull for a communal act of forgetfulness, but rather for an act of forgetfulness where they erred inadvertently in their teaching and the law was forgotten by them.
2.3.2
עם שגגת מעשה – and most of the community inadvertently erred and performed an act through their statement. As is it written (Leviticus 4:13): “[If it is the whole community of Israel] that has erred and the matter escapes the notice [of the congregation]…,” it is the inadvertent error of action and the matter escaped notice.
2.3.3
וכן המשיח – and similarly the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil is not liable for a sacrifice until the matter of the law escapes his notice and he himself does an inadvertent act through the teaching that he thought of, as is it written (Leviticus 4:3): “[If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt,] so that blame falls upon the people…,” which teaches that the anointed [priest] is like the people.
2.3.4
ובעבודה זרה אין חייבין – (and for idolatrous worship), for the Jewish court that inadvertently erred in the teaching regarding idolatrous worship are liable [to offer] a bullock and a goat.
2.3.5
אין חייבין אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה – like all of the other commandments, and we derive [the rules concerning] idolatrous worship from an analogy, as we wrote above (Tractate Horayot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2), regarding the comparison of עיני/the notice (Leviticus 4:13: “If it is the whole community of Israel that has erred and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation….”; and Numbers 15:24: “If it was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community…”)
2.3.6
ואין חייבין אלא על דבר שזדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת – for there are thirty-six cases of extirpation in the Torah (see Mishnah Keritut, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), and for each, one is liable for an inadvertent sin a sin-offering, except for five where one is not liable for a sin-offering for an inadvertent action, which are circumcision, and the Passover Sacrifice, because they are “positive-commandments” , even though they are punishable by extirpation for willful violation, they do not require a sin-offering for an inadvertent violation, for concerning the sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:3): ”so that they do any of the things which by the LORD’s commandments ought not to be done…” and the case of blaspheming God, which lacks an action. And the defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy Things, there is no obligation for an inadvertent action other than a sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to pecuniary conditions that is mentioned in Leviticus (see Leviticus 5:6-11 – and Talmud Horayot 9a). And all of these the Jewish court does not bring a sin offering for its inadvertent error, nor does the anointed [priest]. It is determined that all of the commandments for which a Jewish court and the anointed priest brings a sacrifice are thirty-one in which for willful violation they are liable for extirpation and for inadvertent error, a fixed sin-offering.
2.4.1
אין חייבין על עשה ועל לא תעשה שבמקדש – a Jewish court that [errantly] taught and erred as regards the defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy things, they are not obligated to bring a communal sacrifice.
2.4.2
על עשה שבמקדש – such as that had become defiled in the Sanctuary/Temple, for it is a commandment for him to leave in the shortest [route], but if he delayed and left through a long one (i.e., route), he is liable for extirpation. And the Jewish court that taught him [errantly] to leave through the longer one are not liable for [bringing] a sacrifice, because regarding this inadvertent act, there is no sin-offering, that is to say, that an individual who erred and acted inadvertently in this and left on the longer one is not liable for a fixed sin-offering but rather [only] a sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to pecuniary conditions.
2.4.3
ולא תעשה שבמקדש – he should not enter the Temple in a defiled state.
2.4.4
ואין מביאין אשם תלוי וכו' - for in every matter that requires on his inadvertent error a fixed sin-offering, he brings on what he was not conscious of a suspensive guilt-offering. For the defilement of the Sanctuary, since he is not liable a sin-offering for his inadvertent error, he does not bring on what he was not conscious of a suspensive guilt-offering.
2.4.5
על עשה שבנדה – if he was having sexual relations with a ritually pure woman, and she said to him, “I have become ritually impure now at the time of the sexual activity, it is a commandment upon him to separate himself (see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4), but he should not separate himself immediately for the exit provides him with pleasure as does his entrance [into her vagina], but rather he presses his nails into the ground, and waits until his membrum genital dies (i.e., loses its energy), and then he removes it without difficulty. For this is the positive [commandment] concerning the menstruant woman. But if the Jewish court erred inadvertently in their teaching and instructed that he should remove it immediately, they are liable for a bullock for a matter that escaped their notice, for the individual is liable for a sin-offering on his inadvertent error.
2.5.1
אין חייבין על שמיעת הקול – his fellow made him take an oath if he knows [enough] to testify and he doesn’t testify to him, as it is written (Leviticus 5:1): [If a person incurs guilt-] When he has heard a public imprecation and- although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter- he does not give information, [so that he is subject to punishment].”
2.5.2
ועל ביטוי שפתים – (see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7) He takes an oath that did not eat, but he did eat, or [he takes an oath] that he did eat, but he did not eat, and similarly [takes an oath] that I ate, but did not eat, and/or that I did not eat, but he really did eat.
2.5.3
ועל טומאת מקדש וקדשיו – [see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1) He enters the Temple in a state of ritual impurity, or that he ate Holy Things, if they (i.e., the Jewish court) erred in their teaching in one of all of these things, neither the Jewish court nor the anointed [priest] are liable for a sacrifice, because individuals are not liable on their inadvertent error for a fixed sin-offering.
2.5.4
והנשיא כיוצא בהן – a king who acted inadvertently in one of these things (i.e., hearing the voice of adjuration, a rash oath or imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary and to its holy things, does not bring a goat and is exempt from [having to bring] a sacrifice, for in each of these, it is written (Leviticus 5:7): “But if his means do not suffice [for a sheep, he shall bring to the LORD, as his penalty for that of which he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a purification offering and the other for a burnt offering],” and (Leviticus 5:11): “And if his means do not suffice [for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a purification offering….,” whomever comes to a state of impoverishment, excluding the king and the High Priest who do not come to a state of impoverishment.
2.5.5
ר' עקיבא אומר הנשיא חייב – for regarding the ruler, it is written (Leviticus 4:26): “Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin,[and he shall be forgiven].,” to teach you that the rule is liable for them. But the Kohen who is anointed is exempt from the sacrifice mentioned in the hearing of the voice of adjuration, and rash oath, and in the imparting of uncleanness to the sanctuary, according o words of Rabbi Akiba, because as it is written (Leviticus 6:13): “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the LORD on the occasion of his anointment: a tenth of an ephah of choice flour [as a regular grain offering],” this is an exclusion, to state that the one-tenth of an ephah of cakes of the meal offering comes an obligation for the anointed priest, but another one-tenth of an ephah does not come to him as an obligation, excluding the one-tenth of the ephah mentioned with the hearing of the voice of adjuration, etc., for the anointed priest does not bring it. And since the Biblical verse excluded him from the one-tenth ephah, he hs excluded also from the two turtledoves and from every sacrifice mentioned in this matter, as it is written at the end of that portion (Leviticus 5:13): “Thus the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for whichever of these sins he is guilty, [and he shall be forgiven. It shall belong to the priest, like the grain offering],” for he who atones with one of these, atones in all of them, and he does not atone in one of these, does not atone for all of them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiba nor according to Rabbi Yosi, but rather, the anointed priest and the ruler are liable for the sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to pecuniary conditions concerning hearing the voice of adjuration, a rash oath, or imparting uncleanness to the Sanctuary, as is proved further on in our Mishnah (Chapter 3, Mishnah 1), and that we teach that a they are not liable for hearing the voice of adjuration, etc., which implies, neither a Jewish court, nor the anointed priest, that is, he is not obligated [to bring] a bull that comes on the for the other commandments, but he is obligated to bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value according to pecuniary conditions.
2.6.1
ובעבודה זרה היחיד והנשיא והמשיח מביאין שעירה – In the Torah portion of Shelach Lecha, regarding the sacrifice for idolatrous worship, it is written (Numbers 15:27): “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat [in its first year as a purification offering],” and it is written afterwards (verse 29): “[For the citizen among the Israelites and for the stranger who resides among them -] you shall have one ritual for anyone [who acts in error],” it compares all of them for this sacrifice.
2.7.1
אשם תלוי – transgressions that for willful violation one is liable to extirpation and for inadvertent acts [one is liable] for a fixed sin offering, they are liable if they are not conscious [of their sin] a suspensive guilt-offering, such as two olives, one of forbidden fat, and the other of permitted fat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them that he consumed.
2.7.2
והמשיח ובית דין פטורין – as it is written concerning a communal sacrifice (Leviticus 4:14): “when the sin through which they incurred guilt became known, the congregation shall offer [a bull of the herd as a purification offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting],” they are not liable for a sacrifice other than what is known, and the anointed [priest] is like the Jewish court.
2.7.3
אשם ודאי – [an unconditional guilt offering], there are five guilt offerings that they bring on the that which is unconditional/clearly known, the guilt offering for sacrilege, the guilt offering for theft, the guilt offering of the Nazirite, the guilt offering of the leper and the guilt offering of a designated handmaiden.
2.7.4
היחיד והנשיא והמשיח חייבין – for all of these are the acts of an individual, and there is no difference between the commoner and the anointed priest and the ruler.
2.7.5
ובית דין פטורים – for the ruling/teaching of a Jewish court has no matter with them, for the guild offering does not come as a result of the [errant] teaching of a Jewish court.
2.7.6
אלא שאין כהן גדול על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו דברי רבי שמעון – the reason of Rabbi Shimon, as it is written regarding the defilement of the Sanctuary (Numbers 19:20): “If anyone who has become impure fails to purify himself, that person shall be cut off from the congregation, [for he has defiled the LORD’s sanctuary…],”for he whose sin is similar to the community, excluding the High Priest, whose sin is not similar to that of the community. For the community, anyone from them who enters inadvertently into the Sanctuary, is liable for an errant deed alone, and since the anointed [priest] is not liable other than for something that escapes his notice with an inadvertent action, as was proved above in our chapter (Mishnayot 1-2). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon, but the High Priest brings a sacrifice of higher or lower value, even on the defilement of the Sanctuary and its holy things.
2.7.7
רבי אליעזר אומר הנשיא מביא שעיר – on the defilement of the Sanctuary and its holy things, because they are liable for extirpation on willful actions. Just as he brings a goat for other commandments where he is liable for extirpation on willful actions. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer, for since he is not liable for an inadvertent act of [defilement] of the sanctuary and its holy things [to bring] a fixed sin-offering, the ruler does not bring in the manner that an individual brings (that is with a sacrifice of higher or lower value – and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
3.1.1
כהן משיח שחטא ואח"כ עבר ממשיחותו – he had not had sufficient time to bring his sacrifice until he passed from his priesthood.
3.1.2
כהן משיח מביא פר – and even after he had has passed following his removal from his anointed position. We say further on in our Mishnah that he brings a bullock, and it [i.e., the Mishnah] did not use this language other than because it was necessary to teach that the ruler who sinned brings a goat prior to his being removed, so it also teaches regarding an anointed [High] Priest that he brings a bullock
3.1.3
ונשיא מבי שעיר – as it is written (Leviticus 4:3): “he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty [a bull of the herd without blemish as a purification offering to the LORD],” which teaches that he brings a sin-offering like he would be liable for at the time that he sinned.
3.2.1
כהן משיח שעבר ממשיחותו וכו' – even though he does not perform [the Divine Service], he still remains in his holiness, for there is no difference between a Kohen who serves and a Kohen who has passed from service, other than the Divine Service and the bullock of Yom Kippur and one-tenth of an ephah that he offers on each day, as is mentioned further on (see Mishnah Horayot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4; see also Mishnah Megillah, Chapter 1, the end of Mishnah 9).
3.3.1
הרי אלו כהדיוט – as it states concerning the ruler (Leviticus 4:22): “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt [by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt],” that he sinned while he was the ruler. And similarly, regarding the anointed priest, it is stated there (Leviticus 4:3): “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, [so that blame falls upon the people…,” that he sinned while he was the anointed priest.
3.4.1
המרובה בגדים – for after the flask of anointing oil was hidden away the Kohen Gadol would enter the High Priesthood through the wearing of eight [sets of] clothing, as it is written (Leviticus 21:10): “…and who has been ordained to wear the vestments…”
3.4.2
אלא פר הבא על כל המצות – the [High Priest] who wears the many dedicated garments does not bring a bullock on his inadvertent sin, as it is written (Leviticus 4:3,5): “the anointed priest.
3.4.3
בעבודת יום הכפורים – for the Divine service of that day is not fit other than through the High Priest alone. But the presently serving Kohen and one who served in the past are equivalent concerning these things.
3.4.4
ולא פורעין ולא פרומין – as it is written concerning the High Priest (Leviticus 21:10): “[he] shall not bare his head or rend his vestments.”
3.4.5
ומחזירין את הרוצח – if one of these dies, the killer returns from his city of refuge, as it is written (Numbers 35:28): “[For he must remain inside his city of refuge] until the death of the high priest…”
3.5.1
כהן גדול פורם מלמטה – If he sustained a death where he is obligated to tear [his clothing], he tears from the bottom at the corner of his garment nearest his feet. And this [verse] that is written (Leviticus 21:10): “or rend his vestments,” for he does not rend like other people.
3.5.2
מלמעלה – opposite/corresponding to the breast near the shoulder, like other people.
3.5.3
אונן – he who sustained a death from one of the seven relatives that he (i.e., a Kohen) is obligated to mourn for, the entire day of death, whether the deceased is buried whether it is not buried [that day], he is an Onan/mourner before the funeral of a kinsman according to the Torah, and from the day of death and onwards, all the while that the deceased is not buried, he is an Onan according to the Rabbis, but the day of burial he is an Onan according to the Rabbis all that day, even after the burial, and from when the deceased is buried on the first day of death, all that night afterwards, he is an Onan according to the Rabbis.
3.5.4
כהן גדול מקריב אונן ולא אוכל – from the Holy Things, for such we found with Aaron on the day that Nadav and Avihu died, he said (Leviticus 10:19): “Had I eaten purification offering today, would the LORD have approved?” On the eating he was stringent but not n the bringing of the offering. And specifically, Aaron who was the High Priest, but his sons who were common priests, they were forbidden that entire day whether to offer [a sacrifice] or to eat from it.
3.6.1
התדיר מחבירו הוא קודם – as Scripture states (Numbers 28:23): “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering.” For since it is written, “the morning portion of the regular burnt offering,” why does it mention “the regular burnt offering?” But, because the All-Merciful stated – because it is more frequent, it precedes it in the first part [of the verse].
3.6.2
וכל המקודש מחבירו וכו' – for so we find with the Kohen as it is written concerning him (Leviticus 21:8): “and you must treat them as holy,[since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you, for I the LORD who sanctify you am holy],” and we say to open first [with the Torah reading] and to bless first (with the invitation to the group to recite the Birkat HaMazon/Blessing after the Meals) and to take the first nice portion.
3.6.3
פר משיח קודם – for since the anointed bull atones and the community atones, and it is by law that what atones comes prior to that which obtains atonement. And similarly, Scripture states (Leviticus 16:17): “When he has made expiation for himself and his household”, and afterwards,“for the whole congregation of Israel.”
3.7.1
האיש קודם לאשה –for he is holier than her, for a man is liable for all of the commandments, but a woman is not liable for positive time-bound commandments.
3.7.2
והאשה קודמת לאיש בכסות – for her shame is greater than the shame of a man.
3.7.3
לקלקלה – for sexual intercourse and for pederasty.
3.7.4
והאיש קודם – this is her practice in this matter and it is not his practice in this matter.
3.8.1
לוי קודם לישראל – [see Tractate Gittin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 8]. As it is written (Deuteronomy 10:8): “At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi [to carry the Ark of he LORD’s Covenant, to stand in attendance upon the LORD…].”
3.8.2
ישראל קודם לממזר – this one (i.e., the Israelite) is of legitimate descent and that one (i.e., the Mamzer) is not of legitimate descent.
3.8.3
ממזר קודם לנתין – this one (i.e., the Mamzer) comes from a fit drop and that one (i.e., the Nattin) comes from an unfit drop.
3.8.4
נתין קודם לגר – this one grew among us in holiness where as that one (i.e., the convert) did not grow among us in holiness.
3.8.5
גר קודם לעבד – this one was not included among those who were cursed and that one (i.e., the servant) was among those who were cursed (see Genesis, chapter 9, verse 25: “Cursed be Canaan; The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”).
3.8.6
ממזר תלמיד חכם קודם לכהן גדול עם הארץ – as it is written (Proverbs 3:15): “She is more precious than rubies; [All your goods cannot equal her.]” She is more precious than a High Priest who enters into the innermost place.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: sefaria.org Licence: CC-BY. Source.