אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר – אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר; דְּתַנְיָא: אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְעָבַר וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו – הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי כָּל מִצְוֹת כְּהוּנָּה עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר; [רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: רִאשׁוֹן חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, וְשֵׁנִי אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט].

Say the latter clause: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering; but with regard to all other matters the two are equal. In this clause we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita : If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest and he left his position and they appointed another priest in his stead, after the cause of his disqualification passes, the first priest returns to his service as High Priest. And with regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are still incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service, and the second is unfit to serve in either position; he may serve neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּיוֹסֵף בֶּן אֵילִים מִצִּפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְעָבַר וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּהוּ אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים לִהְיוֹת לֹא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט – מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְאֵין מוֹרִידִין;

The baraita continues. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left his position, the priests appointed another, Yosef ben Eilim, in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification passed, his brethren the priests did not allow Yosef ben Eilim to serve, neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to enmity, jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as an ordinary priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.

רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר? אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִין, רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַב יוֹסֵף אֲמַר: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לָהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְּתַנָּאֵי.

The Gemara asks: Can it be that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna according to different tanna’im . It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.

רָבָא אֲמַר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְסָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בַּחֲדָא וּפָלֵיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא;

Rava said: The entire mishna is stating the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to one matter and disagrees with him with regard to one matter.

דְּתַנְיָא: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֵלּוּ הֵם: פָּר הַבָּא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וּפַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְלֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, אֲבָל הוּא פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לַקְּרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בְּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ.

This is as it is taught in a baraita : These are matters with regard to which there are differences between a High Priest and an ordinary priest: The High Priest brings the bull that comes for any of the mitzvot, and the bull of Yom Kippur, and the daily tenth of an ephah meal-offering. And he may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments as expressions of mourning; but he rends his garment from below in an inconspicuous manner, and the ordinary priest rends his garment from above, in the typical manner. And the High Priest may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge.

וּמַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל [וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק], מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ, וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כֵּלִים, וְכָל עֲבוֹדַת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵינָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא בּוֹ, וּפָטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו,

The baraita continues: And the High Priest sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner on the day that a close relative dies, but he may not partake of the offerings on that day and he does not receive a share of those offerings. He sacrifices a portion at the head of the priests, i.e., whenever he chooses, and takes a portion at the head, i.e., he takes a portion from any offering that he chooses. And he performs the Temple service wearing eight priestly garments, and the entire Yom Kippur service is valid only when performed by him, and he is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְרוּבֵּה בְּגָדִים חוּץ מִפָּר הַמֵּבִיא עַל כָּל הַמִּצְוֹת, וְכוּלָּן נוֹהֲגִין בְּמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר חוּץ מִפַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְכוּלָּן אֵין נוֹהֲגִין בִּמְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה: לֹא פּוֹרֵעַ וְלֹא פּוֹרֵם, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא לַקְּרוֹבִים, וּמוּזְהָר עַל הַבְּתוּלָה, וְאָסוּר בְּאַלְמָנָה, וּמַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיר.

The baraita continues: And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, except for the bull the High Priest brings for all the mitzvot. And all these halakhot are in effect with regard to a former anointed High Priest, except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah. And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated (see Leviticus, chapter 21): He may not grow his hair long and may not rend his garments, and he may not render himself impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of his relatives dies, and he is warned to marry a virgin, and it is prohibited for him to marry a widow, and when he dies he restores the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: He does not restore the unwitting murderer to his home.

וְהַאי מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא, מַאן שָׁמְעַת לֵיהּ דַּאֲמַר: פָּטוּר עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

The Gemara asks: And with regard to this baraita , from where can it be derived that the tanna is Rabbi Shimon? Rav Pappa said: Whom did you hear who says: A High Priest is exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? It is Rabbi Shimon. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest, and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, who does not bring a bull for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action.

״חוּץ מֵחֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה״. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – זֶה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, ״אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה״ – זֶה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, ״וּמִלֵּא אֶת יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת הַבְּגָדִים״ – זֶה מְרוּבֶּה בְּגָדִים, עַל כּוּלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם וְעַל כָּל נַפְשֹׁת מֵת לֹא יָבֹא״;

§ The baraita teaches: And all these halakhot are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion where the halakhot of the High Priest are enumerated. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10); this is a High Priest. “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”; this is the priest anointed for war. “And who is consecrated to don the garments”; this is the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments. With regard to all of them, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments, neither shall he come upon any dead body” (Leviticus 21:10–11).

יָכוֹל יְהוּ כּוּלָּן מַקְרִיבִין אוֹנְנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּי נֵזֶר שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו״, עָלָיו – וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ; וְאַחַר שֶׁחִלְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא מְצוּוֶּה עַל הַבְּתוּלָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.

One might have thought that all of these priests sacrifice offerings as acute mourners. Therefore, the verse states: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it is derived: “Upon him,” the High Priest, but not upon another priest. And after the verse differentiated the priest anointed for war, one might have thought that he would not be commanded to marry a virgin, a mitzva that appears in the following verse. Therefore, the verse states with the letter vav as a prefix: “And he shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), which serves to include the priest anointed for war.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וְהוּא אִשָּׁה בִּבְתוּלֶיהָ יִקָּח״ – אַחַר שֶׁחִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב רִיבָּה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״.

The Gemara comments: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the verse “And he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Once the verse had distinguished between a priest anointed for war and a High Priest in terms of bringing offerings as an acute mourner, it included the priest anointed for war with regard to the halakhot that follow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? Therefore, the verse states: “And he,” to include a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no source available to include the priest anointed for war.

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע מַהוּ בְּאַלְמָנָה? מִידְחָא דָּחֵי אוֹ מִיפְטַר פָּטַר? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ.

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: In the case of an anointed High Priest who was afflicted with leprosy, what is the halakha with regard to marrying a widow? Is he temporarily disqualified from service, i.e., does he remain a High Priest and is it therefore prohibited for him marry a widow? Or is he totally absolved of his status as High Priest and therefore it is permitted for him to marry a widow? The answer was not available to him.

זִימְנִין הָוֵי יָתֵיב רַב פַּפָּא וְקָמִבָּעֲיָא לֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרַב פַּפָּא, תָּנֵינָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁעָבַר מֵחֲמַת קִרְיוֹ, עָבַר מֵחֲמַת מוּמִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהוּא״. קָם, נְשַׁקֵיהּ בְּרֵישֵׁיהּ וְיָהֵיב לֵיהּ בְּרַתֵּיהּ.

On another occasion, Rav Pappa was sitting and he raised the same dilemma. Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Pappa: We learn in a baraita : I have derived only that the High Priest who stepped down for a brief period due to his seminal emission is commanded to marry a virgin. From where do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes, who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? The verse states: “And he.” Leprosy is an example of a blemish, so it is prohibited for a High priest afflicted with leprosy to marry a widow. When Rav Pappa heard this baraita , he arose and kissed him on his head and gave him his daughter to marry, due to his appreciation for his expertise in Torah study.

מתני׳ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל פּוֹרֵם מִלְּמַטָּה, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן וְלֹא אוֹכֵל, וְהַהֶדְיוֹט לֹא מַקְרִיב וְלֹא אוֹכֵל.

A High Priest rends his garments from below when he is in mourning, and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above like a non-priest. A High Priest sacrifices offerings as an acute mourner, i.e., on the day of the death of one of his close relatives, but he may not eat from those offerings. And an ordinary priest who is an acute mourner neither sacrifices offerings nor eats from those offerings.

גמ׳ אָמַר [רַב]: ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מַמָּשׁ, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מַמָּשׁ; וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: ״לְמַטָּה״ – לְמַטָּה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה, ״לְמַעְלָה״ – לְמַעְלָה מִקַּמֵּי שָׂפָה, וְזֶה וְזֶה בְּצַוָּאר.

Rav says: From below, written with regard to the High Priest, means actually from below, from the bottom of the garment, and from above means actually from above, from the top of the garment. And Shmuel said: From below means from below the neckline, and from above means from above the neckline, i.e., from the neckline itself, and both this High Priest and that ordinary priest rend their garments at the neck of their garment.

מֵיתִיבֵי: עַל כָּל הַמֵּתִים כּוּלָּן – רָצָה מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, רָצָה אֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל קַמֵּי שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ, עַל אָבִיו וְעַל אִמּוֹ – מַבְדִּיל; כֵּיוָן דִּבְעָלְמָא הָוֵי קֶרַע, קְרֵי כָּאן ״בְּגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״!

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita : For all the dead relatives for whom one rends his garments, if he wishes he rends the neckline of his garment asunder; if he wishes he does not rend the neckline of his garment asunder. If he is rending his garments for his father or for his mother he rends the neckline asunder. Since in general, it is a tear even without rending the neckline asunder, one can read here with regard to the High Priest: “Nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10). This supports the opinion of Rav that the High Priest does not rend his garments from above like others do; rather, he rends his garments from below.

שְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: כָּל קֶרַע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַבְדִּיל שָׂפָה שֶׁלּוֹ – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא קֶרַע שֶׁל תִּפְלוּת. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְרִיעָה בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל?

The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Any tear that does not rend his neckline asunder is only a gratuitous tear that serves no purpose. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda rending of garments involves rending the neckline, the High Priest may rend his garment from above provided that he does not rend the neckline. The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yehuda of the opinion that there is rending of garments for a High Priest?

וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״רֹאשׁ לֹא יִפְרַע וּבֶגֶד לֹא יִפְרֹם״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: בְּרֹאשׁ וּבֶגֶד שֶׁל סוֹטָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם״ – שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּפְרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה כָּל עִיקָּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה; רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ פּוֹרֵם כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁבְּנֵי אָדָם פּוֹרְמִין, אֶלָּא הוּא מִלְּמַטָּה וְהַהֶדְיוֹט מִלְמַעְלָה!

But isn’t it taught in a baraita : Had it been stated: He shall neither let the hair of a head grow, nor rend garments, I would have said: It is with regard to the head and the garment of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [ sota ] that the verse is speaking, and it means that the High Priest must not loosen her hair or rend her garments, in the manner that an ordinary priest does to the sota . Therefore, the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments” (Leviticus 21:10), indicating that he is not included in the mitzva to grow long hair and rend garments at all; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: He does not rend his garments in the manner that people typically rend their garments. Rather, he rends his garment from below and an ordinary priest rends his garments from above. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest does not rend his garments at all.

שְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא וּפָלֵיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter, i.e., the way in which garments are rent, and disagrees with him with regard to one matter, as Shmuel holds that the High Priest rends his garments.

מתני׳ כָּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְכָל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ וּפַר הָעֵדָה עוֹמְדִים – פַּר הַמָּשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם לְפַר הָעֵדָה בְּכָל מַעֲשָׂיו.

Any mitzva that is more frequent than another mitzva precedes that other mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation, which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions, i.e., its sacrificial rites.

גמ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״מִלְּבַד עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״, (לָמָּה לִי) מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״עוֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״, ״עוֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״ לָמָּה לִי? הָכִי קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: כָּל דִּתְדִירָה קָדְמָה.

The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna that the more frequent matter takes precedence: From where are these matters derived? Abaye said: It is as the verse states concerning the additional offerings brought on Festivals: “Beside the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt-offering” (Numbers 28:23). Once it is written: “The burnt-offering of the morning,” why do I need: “A daily burnt-offering”? Clearly the reference is to the daily burnt-offering of the morning. This is what the Merciful One is saying: Any matter that is more frequent takes precedence. Since it is a daily offering, it is more frequent. Therefore, it precedes other offerings.

״וְכָל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ הוּא קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ״. מְנָלַן? דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה, לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן.

The mishna continues: And anyone who is more sanctified than another precedes that other person. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive these matters? It is as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, that from the verse written with regard to a priest: “And you shall sanctify him, as he sacrifices the bread of your God, he shall be holy unto you” (Leviticus 21:8), it is derived that a priest should be esteemed and granted precedence with regard to any matter of sanctity. He should be the one to open first in the reading of the Torah, and to recite the blessing of the zimmun first, and to take a fine portion first. The priest who is more sanctified takes precedence.