Tanach · Acharonim on Tanach · Or HaChaim · Torah
Or HaChaim on Leviticus 6:15/אור החיים על ויקרא ו׳:ט״ו
אוְהַכֹּהֵן וְגוֹ׳. תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו – בְּפֶרֶק הַתְּכֵלֶת (מנחות נא.) דָּרְשׁוּ שֶׁבָּא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו שֶׁבְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת יְבִיאֶנָּה בִּמְקוֹמוֹ, וְהוּא אָמְרוֹ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו. וְדָרְשׁוּ מ״ם שֶׁל מִבָּנָיו לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֶרֶת, דְּתַנְיָא שָׁם: ״בָּנָיו״ – אֵלּוּ כֹּהֲנִים הֶדְיוֹטִים, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ – הֲרֵי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אָמוּר, מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם ״בָּנָיו״? בְּהֶדְיוֹטִים. וּמַסִּיק שָׁם בַּגְּמָרָא דְּמֵאָמְרוֹ ״מִבָּנָיו״ דּוֹרֵשׁ כֵּן.
1 והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו, and one of his sons, the priest who will be anointed in his stead, etc. The sages in Menachot 51 explain that this verse teaches that if a High Priest has died and no successor has as yet been appointed, that one of his sons must offer the daily meal-offering which is mandatory for the High Priest. They derive this הלכה from the words מבניו תחתיו, "one of his sons in his stead." The same sages use the letter ם in the word מבניו for a different exegetical purpose. The Talmud on that folio quotes a Baraitha according to which the word בניו means that the High Priest's sons enjoy the status of ordinary priests; to the query that may be the Torah intended them to have the status of High Priests (pl)? The sages point to the words והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו as proof that only one of the sons may be anointed as High Priest in place of their father. It seems clear that this conclusion is derived from the word מבניו, i.e. from amongst his sons, not all his sons.
בוּבְהוֹרָיוֹת פֶּרֶק ג׳ (הוריות יא.) אָמְרוּ עוֹד: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טָעוּן מְשִׁיחָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, נֵימָא קְרָא ״וְהַכֹּהֵן מִתַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״, מַאי ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ וְכוּ׳, עַד כָּאן. וְקָשֶׁה, וַהֲלֹא צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ לְלַמֵּד עַל בָּנָיו הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֵם הֶדְיוֹטוֹת כְּמַאֲמַר הַתַּנָּא בְּפֶרֶק הַתְּכֵלֶת. וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁלְּלַמֵּד עַל בָּנָיו הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתְּחִלָּה שֶׁהֵם הֶדְיוֹטוֹת שַׁפִּיר נִשְׁמַע, הֲגַם שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״, כִּי שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד לָמָּה לִי? אֶלָּא וַדַּאי שֶׁ״בָּנָיו״ דְּרֵישָׁא בְּהֶדְיוֹטִים, ״בָּנָיו״ דְּסֵיפָא בִּגְדוֹלִים, וְלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״ אֶלָּא לִדְרָשָׁא לִמְשׁוֹחַ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בֶּן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
2On this subject the Talmud Horiot 11 adds that even a High Priest who is the son of a High priest needs to undergo anointing with the oil of anointing. They derive this from the words: והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו; if anointment of the son were not required all the Torah would have had to write was והכהן מתחתיו מבניו the extraneous word המשיח teaches that even if the High Priest's own son is his successor he has to be anointed. This seems difficult. The word המשיח is essential to teach us that the sons who up until then were only ordinary priests, as per We could answer this query by saying that we did not need the word המשיח to enable us to allow the sons to offer the meal-offering in the absence of a newly appointed High Priest, for why else would the Torah write two verses dealing with the ordinary priest offering a meal-offering. It is clear therefore that on the first occasion the Torah mentions the meal-offering brought by an ordinary priest that the regular priest is meant, whereas on the second occasion the Torah refers to an ordinary priest who happens to be the son of a High Priest. The word המשיח did not have to be mentioned unless the Torah wished us to derive an additional lesson from that word. The Talmud concluded therefore that the word teaches that even if a High Priest is succeeded by his son he needs to be anointed for his new office.
גוַעֲדַיִן קָשֶׁה בַּכָּתוּב לָמָּה אָמַר תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר ״מִבָּנָיו תַּחְתָּיו״. וְאוּלַי שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן לְהַסְמִיךְ בָּנָיו לְ״יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ״ לְכַוֵּן דְּרָשַׁת פֶּרֶק הַתְּכֵלֶת (מנחות כז:) שֶׁאִם מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מִנּוּ אַחֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ – בְּנוֹ יָבִיא בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְזֶה שִׁעוּר הַכָּתוּב: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו יַעֲשֶׂה״, וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִתְמַנָּה – מִבָּנָיו שֶׁל מֵת יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם הָיָה אוֹמֵר הַכָּתוּב ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִבָּנָיו תַּחְתָּיו״, אָז תִּהְיֶה הַכַּוָּנָה שֶׁאֵין חִיּוּב עַל בְּנוֹ לְהָבִיא אֶלָּא אִם יִהְיֶה תַּחְתָּיו, שֶׁכֵּן מַשְׁמַע דַּוְקָא תַּחְתָּיו, פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה אוֹ שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַעֲמֹד תַּחְתָּיו. וּמֵאָמְרוֹ ״מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה״ מַשְׁמַע כָּל יוֹרֵשׁ יָבִיא. וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁחוֹלֵק וְסוֹבֵר שֶׁאִם לֹא מִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו בָּאָה מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר, אָמַר ״תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו״ לִסְמֹךְ ״מִבָּנָיו״ לְ״יַעֲשֶׂה״, לוֹמַר כִּי אֵין רָאוּי לְשׁוּם אָדָם אַחֵר לִכָּנֵס תַּחַת הַכֹּהֵן זוּלַת בְּנוֹ. אַחַר שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁתִּי זֶה מָצָאתִי שֶׁכֵּן דְּרָשׁוּהָ בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים לְמֵבִין מַשְׁמָעוּת הַבָּרַיְתוֹת עַל נָכוֹן.
3There remains the problem why the Torah had to write תחתיו מבניו, an inverted way of saying מבניו תחתיו, "from amongst his sons as his replacement." Perhaps the Torah was especially interested in the word תחתיו appearing next to the person whom he replaced in order for the Talmud in Menachot to be able to arrive at the conclusion that one of the High Priest's sons must offer the meal-offering normally offered by the High Priest pending appointment of a new High Priest. The whole verse may then be understood as follows: והכהן המשיח תחתיו יעשה, "and the priest who will be anointed in his place will carry out (the functions of that Office);" however, if a replacement has not yet been appointed, מבניו יעשה, "one of his sons may carry it out." Had the Torah written הכהן המשיח מבניו תחתיו, the meaning would have been that only if the son had already been appointed in place of his father, i.e. had been appointed or was considered fit to be appointed, would he be obligated to offer the meal-offering his father used to offer; seeing that the Torah reversed the words מבניו תחתיו and wrote תחתיו מבניו יעשה, we derive the law that any of the High Priest's heirs may bring the meal-offering. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that as long as no replacement for the High Priest has been appointed the meal-offering in question has to be paid for by the public purse (instead of by the High Priest or his estate). The significance of the sequence of the words תחתיו מבניו then is that no one other than the son of the deceased High Priest is entitled to replace him. After having given this explanation I have found that Torat Kohanim already preceded me in explaining these Baraithot in the same spirit.