Daf Ditty Pesachim 57: Goats vs Sheep

It was similarly taught that Abba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and
powerful people would take them from their owners by force. The owners stood and consecrated
these trunks to Heaven. It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that
the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages.
With regard to the prominent priests and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the
name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Baitos, woe
is me due to their clubs.

Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers and the
rumors they spread.

Woe is me due to the High Priests of the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens that they
use to write lies. Woe is me due to the servants of the High Priests of the house of Yishmael ben
Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists.

The power of these households stemmed from the fact that the fathers were High Priests, and their
sons were the Temple treasurers, and their sons-in-law were Temple overseers [amarkalin].

And their servants strike the people with clubs, and otherwise act inappropriately.
Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: The
people in the Temple courtyard all cried four cries, as they were in agreement over various issues
(Pardes Rimonim). The first cry was: Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary (see
I Samuel 2:22).

Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. And an additional cry: Leave
here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates the items consecrated to
Heaven.

Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would wrap his hands in silk
[shirai] and perform the service.

This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the
Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he
was unwilling to dirty his hands for it.

And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let the
righteous Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas ben Elazar the priest, enter and serve as
High Priest, although the members of this family were violent.

And the people in the Temple courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let
Yoḥanan ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings
consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings.
They said about Yoḥanan ben Narbbai that he and his household would eat three hundred
calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty se’a of doves for dessert. They said:
Throughout all the days of Yoḥanan ben Narbbai there was no leftover sacrificial meat in the
Temple, as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened
to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The
king said that goat meat is better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said:
Who can prove which one of us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and
tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the
Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai
came, and when they asked him this question,

he signaled contemptuously with his hand and said:

If goat is better, let it be sacrificed as the daily offering. The daily offering is a lamb, proving that
its meat is preferable to that of a goat.
Rav Ashi said: Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai did not study the Mishna and was an ignoramus who
did not know that this halakha is stated explicitly in the mishna. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi
Shimon says: Lambs take precedence over goats in every place they are mentioned in the Bible.
I might have thought that this is because it is a more select species. Therefore, the verse states:

--‫ ְלַחָטּאת‬,‫ֶכֶּבשׂ ָיִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ‬-‫ לב ְוִאם‬32 And if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin-offering, he
.‫ ְיִביֶאָנּה‬,‫ְנֵקָבה ְתִמיָמה‬ shall bring it a female without blemish.
Lev 4:32

“If he brings a lamb as his offering”, The Torah passage where bringing a lamb as a sin-offering
is discussed appears after the passage describing the sin-offering of a goat. The inconsistent order
teaches that both these animals are equal.

Ravina said: Yissakhar did not even read the Bible properly, as it is written: “If a lamb”
(Leviticus 4:32),

‫ ִלְפֵני‬,‫ ְוִהְק ִריבוֹ‬--‫ ָק ְרָבּנוֹ‬,‫ יב ְוִאם ֵﬠז‬12 And if his offering be a goat, then he shall present it before
.‫ְיהָוה‬ the LORD.
Lev 3:12

“if a goat”, teaching: If one wishes, let him bring a lamb; if one wishes let him bring a goat.
There is no clear preference.
The king said: Since he not only disagrees with me but has no reverence for the monarchy, as
evident from his contempt, sever his right hand.

He gave a bribe, and the official severed his left hand. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived
him and had the official sever his right hand as well.

Rav Yosef said: Blessed is God Who took retribution [mitarpesei] from Yissakhar of Kfar
Barkai in this world and did not wait to punish him more severely in the next world.

His punishment fit the crime; because he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood and was
overzealous in keeping his hands clean, both his hands were severed.

Rashi identifies the king and queen who argued about the meat of the sheep and of the kid as being
royal members of the Chashmonai dynasty. Chasam Sofer points out, though, that if this was the
case, they were themselves kohanim, and they should have been experts in the various tastes of
meats.1

Why did they have to consult with the Kohen Gadol?

He suggests, however, that they might have been from the line of Hordos, who was not a kohen, or
from Aristobulus, who was not a Kohen Gadol. The Gemara (Krisus 28 see below) records this
story featuring Yannai HaMelech and his wife. Ben Yehoyada explains that the argument between
the King and the Queen was not at all a simple thing, for it involved sublime inferences. They were
actually arguing whether Chanukah or Pesach was a more significant holiday in the calendar year.
Pesach is in Nisan, with the zodiac sign of a sheep – ‫ טלה‬.

Chanukah is celebrated at the end of Kislev, the month which corresponds to the tribe of Gad. The
end of Chanukah is in Teves, with the zodiac sign of a goat – ‫גדי‬. The king argued that Chanukah is
more significant, in that it is celebrated for eight days, not only seven, as is Pesach. We also finish

1
https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20057.pdf
the entire Hallel each day, unlike Pesach, and the miracle of Chanukah occurred in Eretz Yisroel,
unlike Pesach which took place outside Israel, in Egypt.

The queen countered and claimed that Pesach was more meaningful, with its sign of the sheep. The
king pointed out that if Chanukah was better, then it would be offered constantly
meaning that Chanukah would be featured in the prayers on a daily basis, something we do find
regarding Pesach ‫זכר‬.‫ליציאת מצרים‬

Sara Ronis writes:2

Today’s daf calls out corrupt and violent Temple leaders, starting with “powerful priests”:

The sages taught: Initially, the priests would place the hides consecrated (for the priests) in the
parva chamber (where the skins of the animal offerings were initially processed). In the
evening, they would distribute them to the members of the family of priests serving in the
Temple that day. And the powerful priests among them would take them by force before they
could be distributed.

The priests were entitled to the hides of these flayed animals, but they were required to share them
with everyone from the priestly family who was serving in the Temple that week. In order to respond
to some powerful priests who hoarded the hides, the Talmud imagines, the rabbis decreed that they
would distribute them each Shabbat eve at the changeover of the watch. The hope was that when two
families were together in the moment when one family left duty and the next came on, the increased
surveillance and social pressure would stop people from strong-arming more than their share.

Unfortunately, the Gemara goes on to say, this move didn’t work, and the corruption continued until
finally the people had to take things into their own hands:

When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, the owners (of the sacrifices) arose
and consecrated the hides to Heaven.

Consecrating the hides to God would have meant that the priests couldn’t take them, or even use
them, for personal gain! This story criticizes the priests for two misdeeds: the initial corruption, and
the systemic failure to fix it. When the leadership fail to resolve the problem, the everyday people
find an ingenious solution, taking the hides out of priestly circulation entirely.

As the daf progresses, the Talmud’s criticism of corrupt priests becomes even more direct, until we
arrive at a passage in which Abba Shaul calls out specific priestly families, by name, for their
violence, rumor-mongering and nepotism. It’s a very long list.

Reading this, it might be hard to remember that by the time the Talmud was edited and finalized,
the Temple had been destroyed for almost five hundred years! No priestly families had illicitly seized
consecrated hides in all that time. So why call it out?

2
Myjewishlearning.com
Scholars have noted that the destruction of the Temple created a leadership vacuum in the Jewish
community. Where the Torah describes biblical Israel being led by kings, prophets, and priests, the
first centuries CE saw a Jewish world where each of these roles was in flux. Rabbis and priests may
have both sought to fill this vacuum, with distinct visions of what Jewish community and Jewish
leadership should look like. This document may testify to this early competition, with the rabbis
working to discredit a model of leadership depending on heredity and ancient connections to the
Temple in Jerusalem.

But even if this was its original historical context, the Talmud offers models for our continued
education and inspiration. In their discussion of corrupt priests, the rabbis also emphasize the
qualities that a good leader should have: peacefulness and fairness, personal merit, and a commitment
to continuing to learn and grow in response to the people’s feedback.

Which is Better – Sheep or Goat?

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

Although the story of the Hasmonean victory against the Greeks during the Second Temple is well-
known, the dynasty that they built degenerated over time. In a number of places in the Talmud we
are told about disagreements between the Sages and the High Priests, who often did not follow the
traditions and rulings of the Sanhedrin. The fourth perek concludes with a number of stories about
Kings and High Priests of the Hasmonean dynasty, and the lack of respect that they had for Jewish
tradition generally and the Temple service specifically.

The Gemara quotes a baraita that lists four cries that were heard in the courtyard of the Temple. One
of them was about Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai who was so fastidious about his own honor that he
would wrap his hands in silk while performing the Temple service, thus indicating that he did not
perceive the avoda (work) of the mikdash as being worthy of dirtying his hands.

The Gemara then describes what became of Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai.

They said: The king and the queen were sitting and talking. The king said that goat meat is
better food, and the queen said lamb meat is better food. They said: Who can prove which one of
us is correct? The High Priest can, as he offers sacrifices all day and tastes their meat. The High
Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was
well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai came, and when they
asked him this question, he signaled contemptuously with his hand and said: If goat is better, let it
be sacrificed as the daily offering. The daily offering is a lamb, proving that its meat is preferable
to that of a goat. The king said: Since he not only disagrees with me but has no
reverence for the monarchy, as evident from his contempt, sever his right hand.

Following this story, the amora’im comment that aside from his lack of political sensitivity, he also
was incorrect in his decision about the quality of the different types of meat.
Rav Ashi points out a Mishna that clearly says that they are of equal importance; Ravina infers this
from Biblical passages.

Although the story appears to simply show the lack of respect the participants had for the Temple
service, in his commentary to the Talmud, Rabbi Yehudah Bachrach suggests that a serious question
was involved.

A person who brings a sin-offering has a choice of either bringing a sheep or a goat. If a sheep is
brought, no one will know that it is a sin-offering, as it could also be a voluntary sacrifice; a goat
clearly indicates that the sacrifice is being brought because of a sin.

Thus the question that Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai did not take seriously was whether as part of the
repentance process it would be better to publicize that a sin had taken place or to hide it.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

Abba Shaul ben Batnis said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Chanin that woe is to me from
nefarious individuals.

Abba Shaul ben Batnis said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Chanin, “woe to me because of the house
of Baysos, a Kohen Gadol. Woe to me because of their club like weapons that Bysos’ servants used
to terrorize the populace. Woe to me because of the house of Chanin, woe to me because of their
whisperings, as the members of Chanin’s household were notorious for offering bad counsel. Woe
to me because of the house of Kasros, because of their pens, as they were notorious for writing letters
that were for people’s detriment. Woe to me because of the house of Yishmael ben Pi’achi, who
oppressed others. All the people mentioned above are high priests, their sons are treasurers in the
Bais HaMikdash, their sons-in-laws are amarkalin, in charge of all affairs in the Bais HaMikdash,
and their servants would beat people with sticks.
The courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash cried out four cries.

The Courtyard of the Bais HaMikdash cried out four cries, i.e., a Heavenly voice cried out, or
alternatively, it would have been fitting for the courtyard to have cried out. The first cry was, “leave
here, sons of Eli, who defiled the Heichal of Hashem.” This refers to Pinchas and Chafni, the two
sons of Eli, who committed grave sins and caused that the house of Eli forfeited the priesthood. The
Courtyard also cried out “leave here, Yissachar, a man from the village of Barkai, who honors himself
but desecrates the sacred offerings of Heaven. This was because he would wrap his hand in silk and
perform the sacrificial service.” The Courtyard also cried out, “Raise up your heads, O gates, so that
Yishmael ben Pi’achi, a student of Pinchas, can enter and perform the service as a Kohen Gadol.”
Although members of Yishmael’s household were strong-arm oppressors, Yishmael himself was
pious, and that is why he is referred to as the disciple of Pinchas the grandson of Aharon HaKohen,
who were both righteous. The Courtyard also cried out, “Raise up your heads, O gates, so that

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Pesachim_57.pdf
Yochanan ben Narbai, student of Pinkai, may enter and fill his stomach with the scared offerings of
Heaven.”

Yochanan ben Narbai was a very generous person.

Yochanan ben Narbai would eat three hundred calves and drink three hundred kegs of wine for
dinner, and he would eat forty se’ah of young birds for dessert. This is not to be taken literally.
Rather, this demonstrates that he was a very generous person. In all the days of Yochanan ben Narbai
there was never any meat leftover for the sacrifices in the Bais HaMikdash. Since Yochanan was so
generous and supported many Kohanim, the Kohanim resided in Jerusalem permanently and they
were available to consume any extra meat from the sacrifices.

Yissachar, a man from the village of Barkai, disgraced the sacrificial service and was punished
accordingly.

Yissachar ben Barkai was punished for disgracing the service in the Bais HaMikdash. Regarding the
procedure of receiving the blood of the sacrifices, it is said: the Kohen shall take from the blood of
the offering. The extra words the Kohen teaches us that the Kohen must perform the service with his
body, and nothing can interpose between the utensil and his skin. By wearing a silk cloth, Yissachar
from the village of Barkai invalidated the service, and furthermore, Yissachar disgraced the service
by not handling the flesh and blood of the offerings directly with his hand. Rav Yosef said, “Blessed
is the Merciful One who punished Yissachar, a man from the village of Barkai in this world. The
punishment that Yissachar received served as a warning to other Kohanim to respect the sacrificial
offerings. (57a - 57b) 9. Yissachar ben Barkai assumed that a lamb’s meat is better than a kid’s meat.
A king and queen of the Hasmonean dynasty were debating what tastes better, the meat of a kid or
the meat of a lamb. The king claimed that the meat of a kid tastes better, whereas the queen claimed
that the meat of a lamb tasted better. They decided that although meat of a lamb normally tastes
better, the Kohen Gadol could determine for them whether a choice cut of kid’s meat would be
superior to a choice cut of lamb meat. This was because the Kohen Gadol was consuming on a daily
basis the fattest goats and lambs. Yissachar ben Barkai, with a dismissive waive of his hand, told the
king, “If the kid’s meat is better, it should be offered for the tamid sacrifice.” The tamid offering,
offered twice daily, was a lamb offering. Since the tamid was brought every day of the year, it must
be the most important of all the sacrifices. The king became incensed, and said, “Since this man has
no fear of the king, let us cut off his right hand.” Yissachar gave a bribe to the king’s servant, and he
had his left hand cut off instead. The king heard about this and he had Yissachar’s right hand cut off
also. Yissachar lost his right hand because most of the services that were performed in the Bais
HaMikdash were performed with the right hand. He lost his left hand because he used his left hand
to warp the silk around his right hand. Since his sin began with his left hand, he lost his left hand
first.

Lambs and kids are equal in quality.

It is evident from his opinion stated that Yissachar, a man from the village of Barkai, was not learned,
because the Mishnah states that Rabbi Shimon says, Scripture always mentions lambs before goats.
One may assume that this is because lambs are superior to goats in quality. The Torah therefore
teaches regarding a chatas offering where it is said if he shall bring a lamb as his offering. Prior to
this verse it is said he shall bring as his offering a she-goat, and thus we see that the lamb and the
goat are equal. Yissachar did not even read Scripture, as the Torah states regarding a shelamim
offering if he offers a sheep, if his offering is a goat. The Torah does not state a preference, so this
indicates that he can bring a lamb for his shelamim offering, or he can bring a goat for his shelamim
offering.

Our Daf states that Yissachar ben Barkai was punished for disgracing the service in the Bais
HaMikdash. Regarding the procedure of receiving the blood of the sacrifices, it is said: the Kohen
shall take from the blood of the offering. The extra words the Kohen teaches us that the Kohen must
perform the service with his body, and nothing can interpose between the utensil and his skin. By
wearing a silk cloth, Yissachar from the village of Barkai invalidated the service, and furthermore,
Yissachar disgraced the service by not handling the flesh and blood of the offerings directly with his
hand. Yissachar was punished by the king who said, “Since this man has no fear of the king, let us
cut off his right hand.” Yissachar gave a bribe to the king’s servant, and he had his left hand cut off
instead. The king heard about this and he had Yissachar’s right hand cut off also. The Maharsha
writes that Yissachar lost his right hand because most of the services that were performed in the Bais
HaMikdash were performed with the right hand. The Ben Yehoyada writes that he lost his left hand
because he used his left hand to warp the silk around his right hand. Since his sin began with his left
hand, he lost his left hand first. The significance of the right hand and the left hand are noted in many
places in the Torah and in the Gemara. One who is right-handed will tie his Tefillin with his right
hand on his left arm. One must place his right shoe on his right foot first, then place the left shoe on
his left foot, and then tie the left shoe, and afterwards tie the right shoe. Apparently, the right hand
always receives precedence to the left hand. The right represents chesed, kindness, and the left
represents din, judgment. One should always make the effort to judge someone’s action favorably
before accusing someone of committing a sin. When HaShem created the world, He thought, so to
speak, of creating the world with judgment only. When HaShem foresaw that the world could not
exist only on judgment, He created mercy, and this is what allows the world to continue to exist. Let
us always remember the Right Hand of HaShem which is extended to all of mankind as an
opportunity to repent, as we recite in the High Holidays Prayers, ki yemincho peshutah lekabel
shavim, Your right hand is extended to accept those who repent.

YISHMAEL BEN FI'ABI

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

Aba Shaul ben Botnis, in the name of Aba Yosef ben Chanin, prayed that he not come in contact
with certain people who had certain undesirable characteristics. He said about the children of
Yishmael ben Fi'abi, "Woe unto me from the family of Yishmael ben Fi'abi, woe unto me from their
fists, for they are Kohanim Gedolim, their sons are treasurers [of the Beis ha'Mikdash], their sons-
in-law are the ones who give all the orders, and their servants smite the people with their clubs!"
The Gemara later relates that the Azarah itself cried out, "Open your heads, o' gates, and allow
Yishmael ben Fi'abi to enter, the student of Pinchas, and let him serve as the Kohen Gadol!"
Who was Yishmael ben Fi'abi, and what was unique about him? Why was he called the student of
Pinchas and praised by the Azarah, while Aba Yosef ben Chanin wanted nothing to do with his
descendants?

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 20:8) records that Yishmael ben Fi'abi was appointed Kohen
Gadol by the Roman ruler of Eretz Yisrael, Agrippa. Sometime after he appointed Yishmael ben
Fi'abi as Kohen Gadol, Agrippa built a balcony on the roof of his palace in order to view the Avodah
as it was performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Yishmael ben Fi'abi and the other Kohanim fiercely
opposed this act of effrontery to the Beis ha'Mikdash and built a high wall to block the Roman ruler's
view of the Avodah. When the Roman ruler ordered that the wall be torn down, Yishmael and his
entourage traveled to the Emperor Nero in Rome in order to issue a formal complaint against
Agrippa's action and to justify their building of the wall. This episode demonstrated the zeal with
which Yishmael ben Fi'abi safeguarded the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

Perhaps when the Gemara says that he was a student of Pinchas, it refers to Pinchas the son of
Aharon, who was known for his zealousness, as the Torah relates (Num 25:7-8).

Aba Yosef ben Chanin's description also demonstrates the strength of character of the family of
Yishmael ben Fi'abi. However, his descendants misused those traits and did not channel their strength
towards the honor of Hashem.

An analysis of Yishmael ben Fi'abi's family name may shed new light on an incident recorded by the
Gemara elsewhere. The Yerushalmi (Yoma 6:3) relates, "All the days of Shimon ha'Tzadik, the
Lechem ha'Panim and Shtei ha'Lechem were blessed and each Kohen received a k'Zayis. Some ate
and were satisfied, others even left some over. When Shimon ha'Tzadik passed away this blessing
ceased, and each Kohen received only the size of a bean. The modest Kohanim refrained from taking
at all, while the gluttonous ones would grab. It happened once that a Kohen grabbed his portion and
his friend's portion. From then on he was called 'Ben ha'Afun' ('son of the bean')."

The Gemara in Yoma (39b) relates a similar incident and concludes that the Kohen was called
thereafter "Ben Chamtzan." Chimtza can also mean "bean"4 and thus it is possible that the Gemara
in both places refers to the same incident and to the same nickname.

The Latin term for bean is "faba." Perhaps the Kohen who grabbed was a descendant of Yishmael
ben Fi'abi (or, as Josephus writes the name, "Fabi"). As mentioned above, Yishmael's descendants
4
see Yevamos 63a, but see Gemara in Yoma, ibid.
ruled with arrogance and took what was not theirs. In a play on words, the Kohanim called the person
who grabbed his bean-size portion and his friend's bean-size portion "Ben Faba" ("Ben ha'Afun")
instead of "Ben Fi'abi."

Tosefta (Kelim Kama 1:6) relates that "the Ba'al ha'Pul would club to death any Kohen who walked
between the Mizbe'ach and the Ulam without performing Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim (washing of
the hands and feet)."

Who was this unidentified "Ba'al ha'Pul"? Perhaps he was a descendant of Yishmael ben Fi'abi who
was known as "Ben ha'Afun," since "Ba'al ha'Pul" literally means "master of the bean."

Despite the fact that he sometimes expressed his zealousness in terms of greed, nevertheless -- like
his grandfather -- he zealously guarded the sanctity of the Beis ha'Mikdash.5

Decline of the Priesthood

Isaiah Gafni writes:6

In the Second Temple Period7

Although the term and office of high priest are infrequent in early biblical literature, and the Aaronide
priesthood a late development, the existence of a high priesthood in the two pre-exilic Israelite
kingdoms is more than likely. From the outset of the Second Temple period not only does the term
"high priest" appear more frequently, but the responsibilities of the office were greatly enhanced.
Beginning either under late Persian or early Hellenistic rule in Palestine, the high priest is not merely
responsible for religious and spiritual life within the country, but is also chief administrator of internal
secular policy, as well as the recognized representative of the Jewish community in all matters of
external diplomacy.

This development of high-priestly power reached its peak under the Hasmoneans, and thus, even when
the latter were already designated as kings, it was considered essential to retain the title of "high priest"
which, encompassing so many functions, was probably even more revered than the monarchy itself.
This fact would tend to explain the famous objection of the Pharisees to the retaining of the high
priesthood by the Hasmoneans, and the outright rejection of their claims by
either John *Hyrcanus or Alexander *Yannai (Kid. 66a; Jos., Ant. 13:288ff.).

5
RAV RE'UVEN MARGULIOS, Cheker l'Shemos v'Kinuyim b'Talmud
6
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/high-priest
7
Jos, Ant., 20:224–51; Schuerer, Gesch, index, S.V. Hohepriester; idem, in: Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 45 (1872), 593–657;
H. Graetz, in: MGWJ, 30 (1881), 49–64, 97–112; G. Hoelscher, Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus… (1940); G. Allon, in: Tarbiz,
13 (1941–42), 1–24. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (1988), 138; J. Vanderkam, From Joshua to
Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (2004); L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, vol. 1
(2004), 224–36; L. Fried, The Priest and the Great King (2004).
It is also noteworthy that the Hebrew coins of the Hasmoneans designate these rulers solely as high
priests, and that the political authority of the community, the *ḥever ha-Yehudim, appears on the coins
accompanied only by the title high priest and may not have even recognized the monarchy.8

With the Roman conquest of Judea and subsequent Herodean rule, the office of high priest became a
political tool in the hands of the administration, and until the destruction of the Temple was never to
return to its earlier prominence. Herod, in an attempt to base his regime on new elements within Jewish
society, completely disassociated himself from the Hasmonean dynasty, and thus the high priesthood
passed into the hands of such houses as Phiabi and Boethus, both having been transplanted from the
Jewish Diaspora.9

Although the high priests continued to serve as presidents of the *Sanhedrin , both their actual powers
and measure of esteem among the people gradually deteriorated, and derision of the high priests during
the late Second Temple period is commonly quoted in rabbinic literature (cf. Pes. 57a; Yoma 8b–9a).
This negative attitude of the Pharisees was probably enhanced by the fact that high priests from the
Hasmonean period onward were primarily Sadducees, and frequent quarrels erupted between the two
factions (cf. Tosef., Yoma 1:8).

By the end of the Second Temple period the high priest was considered no more than a religious
functionary of the Roman administration, and thus even the garments of the high priest were entrusted
at times to the hands of the local Roman procurator and handed over to the priests just prior to the
various festivals. It is understandable, therefore, that with the zealots' seizure of Jerusalem one of their
first acts was the appointment of a new high priest, as if thereby to display the establishment of a new
Jewish government in Jerusalem (Jos., Wars 4:147ff.).

8
See A. Schalit, Hordos ha-Melekh (1960), 159–60, 561–2
9
regarding this tendency under Herod, cf. M. Stern, in Tarbiz, 35 (1965–66), 245ff.
Berenice of Cilicia

Also known as Julia Berenice and sometimes spelled Bernice (Greek: Βερενίκη, Bereníkē; 28 – after
81), was a Jewish client queen of the Roman Empire during the second half of the 1st century.
Berenice was a member of the Herodian Dynasty that ruled the Roman province of Judaea between
39 BCE and 92 CE. She was the daughter of King Herod Agrippa I and a sister of King Herod
Agrippa II.
What little is known about her life and background comes mostly from the early historian Flavius
Josephus, who detailed a history of the Jewish people and wrote an account of the Jewish
Rebellion of 67. Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Aurelius Victor and Juvenal, also tell about her.
She is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (25:13, 23; 26:30). However, it is for her
tumultuous love life that she is primarily known from the Renaissance. Her reputation was based on
the bias of the Romans to the Eastern princesses, like Cleopatra or later Zenobia. After a number of
failed marriages throughout the 40s, she spent much of the remainder of her life at the court of her
brother Herod Agrippa II, amidst rumors the two were carrying on an incestuous relationship. During
the First Jewish-Roman War, she began a love affair with the future emperor Titus Flavius
Vespasianus. However, her unpopularity among the Romans compelled Titus to dismiss her on his
accession as emperor in 79. When he died two years later, she disappeared from the historical record.
Berenice was born in 28 to Herod Agrippa and Cypros, as granddaughter to Aristobulus IV and
great-granddaughter to Herod the Great. Her elder brother was Agrippa II (b. 27), and her younger
sisters were Mariamne (b. 34) and Drusilla (b. 38). According to Josephus, there was also a younger
brother called Drusus, who died before his teens. Her family constituted part of what is known as
the Herodian Dynasty, who ruled the Judaea Province between 39 BCE and 92 CE.

Berenice depicted with her brother Agrippa II during the trial of St. Paul. From
a stained glass window in St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne.
Josephus records three short-lived marriages in Berenice's life, the first which took place sometime
between 41 and 43, to Marcus Julius Alexander, brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander and son
of Alexander the Alabarch of Alexandria. On his early death in 44, she was married to her father's
brother, Herod of Chalcis, with whom she had two sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus. After her
husband died in 48, she lived with her brother Agrippa for several years and then married Polemon
II of Pontus, king of Cilicia, whom she subsequently deserted. According to Josephus, Berenice
requested this marriage to dispel rumors that she and her brother were carrying on
an incestuous relationship, with Polemon being persuaded to this union mostly on account of her
wealth.[7] However the marriage did not last and she soon returned to the court of her brother.
Josephus was not the only ancient writer to suggest incestuous relations between Berenice and
Agrippa. Juvenal, in his sixth satire, outright claims that they were lovers. Whether this was based
on truth remains unknown.[9] Berenice indeed spent much of her life at the court of Agrippa, and by
all accounts shared almost equal power. Popular rumors may also have been fueled by the fact that
Agrippa himself never married during his lifetime.
Like her brother, Berenice was a client ruler of the parts of the Roman Empire that lie in the present-
day Israel. The Acts of the Apostles records that during this time, Paul the Apostle appeared before
their court at Caesarea.
Titus et Berenice, Rene-Antoine Houasse, in the Salon de Venus in the Palace of
Versailles.

Tal Ilan writes:10

Berenice, daughter of King Agrippa I, queen of Chalcis, was married three times and then became
the lover of the emperor’s son, Titus. Inscriptions indicate that she was a Roman citizen and bore the
Roman name Julia. Our information on her comes initially from Josephus, but it appears that because
of personal considerations he withheld vital information about Berenice, which we learn only from
various Roman historians.

Berenice was probably born in Rome to Agrippa and Cyprus, before her father became king in 36
C.E. Thus, she was Herod the Great’s great-granddaughter. After her father’s ascension to the throne,
as the Emperor Caligula’s favorite, she was betrothed to Marcus, son of Alexander, head of the
Jewish community in Alexandria, and nephew of Philo the philosopher. According to calculations,
she was only thirteen at the time (Josephus, Ant. 19.276–277). It is unclear whether or not she
actually married Marcus. After his death in 44 C.E., when she was sixteen years of age, her father
arranged a marriage for her with his older brother, Herod. The Emperor Claudius, who had confirmed
Agrippa’s kingship in Judea, also nominated his brother Herod as king of Chalcis, a tiny principality
in the Lebanon Mountains. With her marriage to Herod, she became queen of Chalcis, a title she
retained after her husband’s death, as inscriptions and literary sources indicate. Berenice had two
sons by Herod—Hyrcanus and Berenicianus—of whom we know nothing. She was widowed for a
second time in 48 C.E., when only twenty (Ant. 19.277, 20.104).

After Herod’s death, the Romans bestowed the kingdom of Chalcis on Berenice’s older brother,
Agrippa II. Agrippa’s move into residence in his new kingdom brought brother and sister into close
quarters. Many sources indicate that they were often found together in official capacities. Inscriptions
mention them together (with Berenice noticed first). Josephus informs us that they appeared in public
together, for example when Agrippa gave his peace address to the people of Jerusalem just before
the outbreak of revolt against Rome (Josephus, BJ 2.333; 402–405). He also describes Philip son of
Jacimus writing a letter addressing the two royal siblings (Josephus, Vita 48; 180). The New
Testament mentions Berenice’s presence with her brother at Paul’s trial (Acts 25:13). Even in
rabbinic literature she is mentioned as the queen alongside her brother, the king (BT Pesahim 57a).
In two sources this constant companionship is interpreted as incest. One source is the Roman satirist
Juvenal, who mentions their relationship in passing as a well-known fact (Juvenal, Saturae 6.155–

10
https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/berenice
158). The other is Josephus, who claims that rumors of the siblings’ inappropriate relationship led
Berenice to seek a third match (Ant. 20.145–146).

As a spouse, Berenice chose Polemo, King of Cilicia. This match led Polemo to undertake
circumcision and a Jewish lifestyle. These concessions on his part, however, did not guarantee a
successful marriage. Sometime later Berenice left Polemo and returned to her kingdom. Thus, she
was present in Palestine when the 66–70 C.E. Revolt against Rome broke out.

Josephus describes Berenice’s role as a solitary pacifying force in preliminaries of the Revolt. He
explains her presence in Jerusalem as resulting from a vow she had made, which she needed to fulfill.
As required by the vow, her hair was shorn and she walked barefoot. Nevertheless, she made her
way to the Roman governor’s palace to ask Gessius Florus—the Roman governor—to desist from
the violent activities he had undertaken against the Jewish population of Jerusalem (BJ 2.313). This
attempt failed. So did her joint venture with her brother, who had meanwhile arrived in Jerusalem,
to still the Jewish insurrection, which came in the wake of Florus’s outrages (BJ 2.402–405).

After this failure Berenice disappears from the pages of Josephus. Probably his special relationship
with Titus prevented him from describing the relationship that developed between Berenice and his
patron. Even his unflattering description of Berenice’s incestuous relationship with her brother
appears only in his later work, Jewish Antiquities, composed after Titus died.

It is from Tacitus that we learn that with the outbreak of war Berenice chose to side with the Romans
and supplied General Vespasian’s offensive with local forces (Histories 2.81.2). Tacitus is also our
first source on Berenice’s love affair with Titus (Histories 2.2.1), the Roman general who eventually
burnt Jerusalem and then succeeded his father to the throne of Rome. The two apparently became
lovers in 68 C.E. Berenice was considerably older than Titus. However, Tacitus is not the only source
that discloses this information. Seutonius and Cassius Dio relate similar details. In 75 C.E., they
inform us, Berenice came to Rome and lived with Titus as his consort. However, public pressure
made the emperor’s son relinquish his ties with the queen and she was sent away. Vaguely, we hear
that when Titus himself became emperor in 79 Berenice returned to Rome but to no avail and she
was compelled to leave (Suetonius, Titus 7.1; Cassius Dio, Roman History 66.15.3–4). Nothing more
is known of her.

A King and Queen Debate Lamb Chops & Goat Meat

Rabbi Y. Y. Jacobsen writes:11

11
It is one of those seemingly bizarre and absurd Talmudic tales. The king and queen—they were from
the Hasmonaean dynasty, ruling during the Second Temple era—sat and debated which food is
preferable, the sheep or the goat.

The king said, “Goats are better.” The queen said “No! Sheep are better.” They decided to seek the
judgment of the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest of the Temple, because of his familiarity with these
animals which regularly served as sacrifices.

The High Priest was the man who cooked and consumed the most lamb and goat in the entire Jewish
world; he would be the expert. They summoned the Kohen Kadol, Named Yissachar, who came from
the town of Barkaei. He insolently waved his hand in a gesture that demonstrated disdain to the king.
How can the king even consider such a foolish idea that goat meat was superior, said the High Priest,
when the daily communal sacrifice was brought from sheep? Yissachar was arguing, if lamb was not
superior to goat meat, why would G-d ask for a daily feast of lamb, rather than goat?

The king was furious at the insult and the denigrating wave of the hand. The king declared: Since
this man, the High Priest, has no reverence for the king, his right hand should be chopped off, making
him unfit to serve at all in the Holy Temple (the Temple service was done primarily with the right
hand). The Kohen Gadol bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead. When the king found
out, he had his remaining hand chopped off as well.

The Talmud then goes on to explain how the High Priest erred. For both the Torah and the Mishnah
intimate that, from the Torah perspective, sheep and goats are equal. What are we to make of this
apparently absurd tale?

Should we laugh or cry? Is this a humorous tale? A parable? Or a reflection on the monstrous
behavior of the monarchs of yore? And how about the story itself? Do kings and queens have nothing
better to do than argue if lamb chaps are superior to goat meat? Anyhow, how can you argue about
the taste of a meal? As we say in Hebrew, “Al taam viraich, ain mah lhitvokaich.” You cannot argue
objectively about taste or smell. And what are we to make of the Kohen Gadol’s strange answer?
The king and queen were ostensibly arguing about physical taste; how does that get resolved from
the daily sacrifice in the Temple? Did the High Priest of Israel really believe that God consumed and
enjoyed the meat of the offerings?

It was the Maggid of Mezeritch, Rabbi Dov Ber, one of the greatest spiritual masters of Judaism, the
successor of the Baal Shem Tov, who suggested that this story served also as a parable for life. The
debate between the king and the queen about sheep and goat represented the debate between Isaac
and Rebecca about their sons Esau and Jacob. Yet, as fate would have it, the student of the Maggid
who transcribed this teaching of his master, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak Horowitz from the city of
Lantzut, Poland, known as the Seer of Lublin, forgot the details. It was he, and the third Lubavitcher
Rebbe, the Tzemach Tzedek, Rabbi Menachem Mendel, who suggested what the Maggid might have
meant.
The Royal Debate
The king and queen—they were from the Hasmonaean dynasty, ruling during the Second Temple
era—sat and debated which food is preferable, the sheep or the goat. The king said, “Goats are
better.” The queen said “No! Sheep are better.” They decided to seek the judgment of the Kohen
Gadol, the High Priest of the Temple, because of his familiarity with these animals which regularly
served as sacrifices. The High Priest was the man who cooked and consumed the most lamb and goat
in the entire Jewish world; he would be the expert.

They summoned the Kohen Kadol, Named Yissachar, who came from the town of Barkaei. He
insolently waved his hand in a gesture that demonstrated disdain to the king. How can the king even
consider such a foolish idea that goat meat was superior, said the High Priest, when the daily
communal sacrifice was brought from sheep?

After all, the Torah instructed the Jewish people to offer every morning and afternoon a lamb; this
was the most routine and consistent offering in the Temple. Yissachar was arguing, if lamb was not
superior to goat meat, why would G-d ask for a daily feast of lamb, rather than goat? The king was
furious at the insult and the denigrating wave of the hand.

The king declared: Since this man, the High Priest, has no reverence for the king, his right hand
should be chopped off, making him unfit to serve at all in the Holy Temple (the Temple service was
done primarily with the right hand).

The Kohen Gadol bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead. When the king found out,
he had his remaining hand chopped off as well. Now the Talmud wants to know who was right? The
Talmud then goes on to explain how the High Priest erred.

For both the Torah and the Mishnah intimate that, from the Torah perspective, sheep and goats are
equal. Whenever one can choose between the two (for example, the Passover offering or a sin
offering), the Torah gives absolutely no preference to one over the other.

Kerisos 28

MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they are
both mentioned, as in the verse:

;‫ י ְִהי ֶה ָלֶכם‬,‫שׁנָה‬
ָ -‫שׂה ָתִמים ָזָכר ֶבּן‬ֶ ‫ה‬ 5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first
.‫ ִתָּקּחוּ‬,‫ָהִעִזּים‬-‫שׂים וִּמן‬ ִ ‫ַהְכָּב‬-‫ִמן‬ year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats;
Ex 12:5

“You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” One might have thought that it is due to the
fact that sheep are more select than goats. Therefore, the verse states:
 -‫ י ִָרים ִמֶמּנּוּ‬,‫ֵחֶלב ַפּר ַהַחָטּאת‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ח ו ְֶאת‬ 8 And all the fat of the bullock of the sin-offering he
-‫ ו ְֵאת ָכּל‬,‫ַהֶקֶּרב‬-‫ ַהְמַכֶסּה ַעל‬,‫ַהֵחֶלב‬-‫ֶאת‬- shall take off from it; the fat that covereth the inwards,
.‫ַהֶקֶּרב‬-‫שׁר ַעל‬ ֶ ‫ ֲא‬,‫ַהֵחֶלב‬ and all the fat that is upon the inwards,
Lev 4:8

“And he shall bring for his offering a goat”, after which it is written:

--‫ ְלַחָטּאת‬,‫ֶכֶּבשׂ י ִָביא ָקְרָבּנוֹ‬-‫לב ו ְִאם‬ 32 And if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin-offering,
.‫ י ְִביֶאנָּה‬,‫נְֵקָבה ְתִמיָמה‬ he shall bring it a female without blemish.
Lev 4:32

“And if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin offering”, which teaches that both of them are
equal.

The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar from the village of Barkai? Yannai the
king, and the queen were sitting and discussing food. The king said that goat meat is better food
than lamb meat, and the queen said lamb meat is the better food. They said: Let us ask Yissakhar
from the village of Barkai, as he is the High Priest and is very familiar with various dishes.

They asked him, and he said to them: If goat meat were better, it would be sacrificed as the
daily offering. The fact that the daily offering is lamb proves that its meat is preferable to that of
goat. As he spoke, he signaled contemptuously with his hand. The king said to his attendants:
Since he signaled contemptuously with his hand, sever his right hand. Yissakhar gave a bribe,
and the official severed his left hand instead. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him,
and said: Let the official sever his right hand as well. Rav Yosef said: Blessed is the Merciful One,
who took retribution [lematrapsei] on Yissakhar of the village of Barkai. His punishment fit his
crime; since he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood, both his hands were severed.

Rav Ashi said, with regard to this incident: Yissakhar of the village of Barkai did not study that
which we learned in the mishna: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they
are both mentioned. One might have thought that it is due to the fact that sheep are more select
than goats. Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus
4:28), after which it is written: “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering” (Leviticus
4:32), which teaches that both of them are equal.

Ravina said: Yissakhar did not even read the Torah, as it is written with regard to the peace
offering: “If he sacrifices a lamb” (Leviticus 3:7), and it further states: “If a goat is his offering”
(Leviticus 3:12). These verses indicate that one is permitted to bring whichever animal he wishes,
and there is no preference.

29 ‫?על טעם ועל ריח – כבש או עז‬

• ‫ פרופ' יונתן גרוסמן‬writes:12

‫ בין כך ובין כך על הבהמה‬.‫התורה פותחת בפני היחיד שהתחייב בקורבן חטאת שתי אפשרויות הקרבה – עז או כבש‬
‫ אלא שהתורה אינה מסתפקת באמירה הכוללת את שתי אפשרויות ההקרבה )כמו שהיה בעולת הצאן‬,‫להיות נקבה תמימה‬
‫ אלא מבארת בפסקות‬,([‫ י‬,'‫שִׂבים אוֹ ִמן ָהִﬠִזּים ְלֹעָלה ָזָכר ָתִּמים ַיְק ִריֶבנּוּ" ]א‬ ָ ‫למשל – " ְוִאם ִמן ַהצּ ֹאן ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ִמן ַהְכּ‬
‫ אפשר להצדיק כפילות זו בכך שהקרבת החטאת‬.‫נפרדות את תהליך הקרבת שעירת העזים ואת תהליך הקרבת הכבשה‬
‫ ועל כן – כשם שבזבח שלמים התורה הקדישה‬,‫דומה להקרבת זבח השלמים; הרי רק החלבים מוקטרים על גבי המזבח‬
‫ יש לזכור שהכתוב עצמו‬.‫ כך גם בחטאת‬,(‫לכל בעל חיים פסקה נפרדת )בשל האליה המוקרבת מהכבש ואיננה קיימת בעז‬
‫ " ְוֶאת ָכּל ֶחְלָבּהּ ָיִסיר ַכֲּאֶשׁר הוַּסר ֵחֶלב‬:‫ כך בחטאת הבאה שעירת עזים‬.‫משווה בין הקטרת החטאת להקטרת זבח שלמים‬
‫ " ְוֶאת ָכּל ֶחְלָבּהּ ָיִסיר ַכֲּאֶשׁר יוַּסר ֵחֶלב ַהֶכֶּשׂב ִמֶזַּבח‬:‫ וכך בחטאת הבאה מן הכבשים‬,(‫ לא‬,'‫ֵמַﬠל ֶזַבח ַהְשָּׁלִמים" )ד‬
‫ כך פירש כאן ר' חיים בן עטר ואף מצא רמז בכתוב להבדל בין הקרבת הכבשה שיש בה גם אליה‬,‫ אכן‬.(‫ לה‬,'‫ַהְשָּׁלִמים" )ד‬
:‫ובין העז‬

12
www.etzion.org.il/he/29-‫עז‬-‫או‬-‫כבש‬-–-‫ריח‬-‫ועל‬-‫טעם‬-‫על‬
 ‫"ונראה כי חלקם הכתוב לטעם עצמו שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל בפסוק 'ואם עז'‪ ,‬שבא לרבות אליה בחטאת מן הכשבה‪ .‬לזה‬
‫דקדק לומר בכשבה 'ַכֲּאֶשׁר יוַּסר ֵחֶלב ַהֶכֶּשׂב'‪ ,‬ובשעירה אמר ' ְוֶאת ָכּל ֶחְלָבּהּ ָיִסיר'‪ ,‬וחדא בשלמי נדבה וחדא בחטאת‬
‫)אור החיים ויקרא ד'‪ ,‬לב(‪.‬‬ ‫חובה"‬

‫אולם מאחר שבסופו של דבר הקדיש הכתוב לכל בעל חיים פסקה נפרדת‪ ,‬מאליה עולה השאלה אם יש הבדל מהותי‬
‫ביניהם‪ ,‬או בניסוח עדין יותר – האם יש עדיפות להקריב אחד מהם?‬
‫כל עוד מדובר בקורבנות נדבה‪ ,‬אפשר להעלות על הדעת שנפתחות בפני מביא הקורבן אפשרויות כלכליות שונות ובזה‬
‫מסתכם ההבדל בין שני מיני צאן אלו‪ .‬עצם ההבדל בין מחיר הכבש למחירו של העז בעולם הקדום עולה למשל בחוק‬
‫החיתי שאומר‪:‬‬
‫]‪"[1‬המחיר לשלושה עזים הוא שני שקלי כסף; המחיר לשני כבשים הוא שקל כסף אחד"‪.‬‬

‫ממחירון זה עולה שמחיר העז גבוה יותר ממחיר הכבש‪ ,‬ועל רקע שימושי שני בעלי החיים האלו בעולם הקדום – הדבר‬
‫אף סביר‪.‬‬

‫אולם החלוקה בין שני סוגי הצאן הללו באה לידי ביטוי במיוחד בקורבנות החובה – של היחיד ושל הציבור‪ .‬בהקשר זה‬
‫קשה לראות כיצד המחיר המשתנה משפיע על בחירת סוג מסוים‪ .‬נראה שיש לפנות אל העולם הסמלי בכדי לומר דבר מה‬
‫בהקשר זה‪ .‬נפתח את עיוננו בסיפור )מתורגם( המובא בשלהי מסכת כריתות ויש בו בכדי לשפוך אור על סוגיה זו‪:‬‬
‫"ִפתחו שערים והוציאו יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד עצמו ומבזה קדשי שמים‪ .‬מה היה עושה? היה כורך משי על ידו‬
‫והיה עובד עבודה‪ .‬מה עלתה לו?‬

‫"ינאי המלך והמלכה היו יושבים‪ .‬המלך אמר הגדי מובחר‪ ,‬והמלכה אמרה הכבש מובחר‪ .‬אמרו‪ :‬נשאל את יששכר איש‬
‫כפר ברקאי שכהן גדול הוא והוא מבין במיני תבשיל‪ .‬שאלו אותו‪ ,‬אמר להם‪ :‬אם הגדי היה מובחר היה עולה לקורבן‬
‫תמיד‪ .‬בזמן שאמר דברים אלו החווה בידו‪ ,‬אמר להם המלך‪ :‬הואיל והחווה בידו – קצצו את יד ימינו‪ .‬נתן שוחד‪ ,‬וקיצצו‬
‫את ידו השמאלית‪ .‬שמע המלך‪ ,‬אמר‪ :‬שיקצצו גם את ידו הימנית‪.‬‬
‫"אמר רב יוסף‪ :‬ברוך ה' שנטל לו את גמולו‪ .‬אמר רב אשי‪ :‬והאם לא למד את המשנה 'כבשם קודמים לעזים בכל מקום‪,‬‬
‫יכול מפני שמובחרין? תלמוד לומר ' ְוִאם ֶכֶּבשׂ' )ויקרא ד'‪ ,‬לב( – מלמד ששניהן שקולין כאחת'‪ .‬רבינא אמר‪ :‬אפילו מקרא‪,‬‬
‫גם לא קרא‪ ,‬דכתיב 'אם כבש'‪' ,‬אם עז' )ויקרא ג'‪ ,‬ז‪ ,‬יב("‬
‫)בבלי‪ ,‬כריתות דף כ"ח ע"ב(‪.‬‬

‫הסיפור החותם את מסכת כריתות מתאר ויכוח סוער של ינאי המלך עם אשתו המלכה )כנראה הכוונה לשלומציון – אחותו‬
‫של נשיא הסנהדרין שמעון בן שטח‪ ,‬שמלכה אחרי מות ינאי(‪ .‬איזה בשר טוב יותר? הגדי )= עז צעיר( או הכבש? הם‬
‫מחליטים לשאול את איש המקצוע שידיו רב לו בענייני בשר – את יששכר איש כפר ברקאי הכוהן הגדול‪ .‬כוהן זה היה‬
‫מפונק וחשש מפני לכלוך ידיו‪ ,‬ועל כן בשעה שהקריב קורבנות היה כורך על ידיו בד משי וכך היה עובד‪ .‬הכוהן הוכיח‬
‫שהצדק עם המלכה והכבש עדיף‪ ,‬שהרי הוא זה שנבחר לעלות על המזבח כקורבן תמיד‪ .‬מדרך הטבע‪ ,‬תשובתו עצבנה את‬
‫ינאי המלך‪ ,‬מה גם שהוא דיבר בתנועות ידיים מוגזמות‪ ,‬ועל כן נגזר עליו שידו תקוצץ‪ ,‬ובסופו של דבר שתי ידיו קוצצו‪.‬‬

‫אגב השקלא והטריא הגמרא מביאה גם את דברי המשנה )בכריתות‪ ,‬שעליה מובאת גמרא זו( – אף שהכבשים נזכרים‬
‫במקרא לפני העזים‪ ,‬אין הדבר מורה על עדיפותם ולא ניתן להצביע על האחד כעדיף על פני רעהו‪.‬‬
‫סוגיה מרתקת זו מעלה שאלה מורכבת למדי שקשה לענות עליה מפשטי המקראות – האם יש הבדל מהותי בעולם‬
‫הקורבנות בין הכבש לעז והאם יש עדיפות לאחד מהם? כבר המשנה המצוטטת בגמרא עומדת על המתח המלווה שאלה זו‪:‬‬
‫מן העבר האחד הכבשים תמיד קודמים לעזים בסדרם בפסוקים )כמו‪ :‬שמות י"ב‪ ,‬ה; ויקרא א'‪ ,‬י; י"ז‪ ,‬ג; כ"ב‪ ,‬כז; במדבר‬
‫ט"ו‪ ,‬יא; י"ח‪ ,‬יז; דב"ה ל"ה‪ ,‬ז(‪ ,‬והדבר אומר דורשני‪ .‬מצד שני‪ ,‬בקורבן חטאת היחיד דווקא אופציית הקרבת עז נזכרת‬
‫ראשונה‪ְ " :‬וֵהִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְשִׂﬠיַרת ִﬠִזּים ְתִּמיָמה ְנֵקָבה ַﬠל ַחָטּאתוֹ ֲאֶשׁר ָחָטא" )ד'‪ ,‬כח(‪ ,‬ורק אחר כך נאמר שהיחיד יכול‬
‫להביא גם כבשה‪ְ " :‬וִאם ֶכֶּבשׂ ָיִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְלַחָטּאת ְנֵקָבה ְתִמיָמה ְיִביֶאָנּה" )ד'‪ ,‬לב(‪ .‬כפי שרב אשי מוסיף בסוגיה שם‪ ,‬גם‬
‫ביחס לזבח שלמים התורה פותחת את שתי האפשרויות ולא נראה שיש עדיפות לאחת מהן‪ִ" :‬אם ֶכֶּשׂב הוּא ַמְק ִריב ֶאת‬
‫ָק ְרָבּנוֹ" )ג'‪ ,‬ז( ‪ְ " /‬וִאם ֵﬠז ָק ְרָבּנוֹ" )ג'‪ ,‬יב(‪.‬‬
 ‫עם זאת‪ ,‬יש להודות שגם דרך חשיבתו של יששכר הכוהן הגדול סבירה למדי‪ .‬אם בוחנים את קורבנות החובה‪ ,‬בולטת‬
‫העדיפות של הכבש על פני העז‪ .‬קורבן התמיד שיש להביאו כשני כבשים‪ ,‬הוא שמגדיר את המזבח ואת אש המזבח‪ ,‬והוא‬
‫זה שפותח אותו בתחילת היום ונועל אותו בסופו‪ .‬גם בכל עולות המוספים שיש להביא בחגים יש שבעה כבשים‪ .‬תופעה‬
‫דומה מתרחשת אצל יולדת ואצל מצורע שנדרשים להביא ביום השמיני כבשים לעולה ולחטאת )אם ידם משגת(; וגם ביום‬
‫הנפת העומר יש להביא כבש לעולה‪ ,‬כמו גם נזיר שצריך להביא כבש לעולה וכבשה לחטאת‪.‬‬
‫מצד שני‪ ,‬נדמה שלא במקרה הוכיחה הגמרא שאין עדיפות לכבש על רקע קורבן חטאת‪ .‬אמנם רב אשי הסתמך על קורבן‬
‫זבח השלמים‪ ,‬אך למעשה גם שם הכבש מוקדם לעז כך שראיה זו מוגבלת‪ .‬אבל בקורבן החטאת התורה מזכירה את‬
‫אופציית העז לפני הכבש‪ ,‬ויש לשים לב שלא מדובר בשתי אפשרויות שנפתחות יחדו‪ .‬הקורא לפי סדר הפסוקים אינו‬
‫מעלה על דעתו שעתידה להיות אפשרות נוספת ליחיד‪ .‬השעירה נראית בתחילה כקורבן היחיד שאותו נדרש להביא היחיד‬
‫החוטא‪ְ " :‬וֵהִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְשִׂﬠיַרת ִﬠִזּים"‪ .‬אופציית הכבש מופיעה בהפתעה וכאפשרות בלבד‪ְ " :‬וִאם ֶכֶּבשׂ ָיִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְלַחָטּאת‬
‫ְנֵקָבה ְתִמיָמה"‪.‬‬

‫מילגרום ראה בהקדמת שעירת העזים בקורבן היחיד הכרעה טכנית שנובעת מהרצון לקשור בין שעירת היחיד לשעיר‬
‫זו פרשנות אפשרית‪ ,‬אולם במבט כולל נדמה שלפנינו הכרעה הקשורה בתפיסה ]‪[2‬עזים שמביא הנשיא‪ ,‬שמוזכר לפני כן‪.‬‬
‫רחבה של הזיקה בין העזים לחטאת‪.‬‬

‫בעוד אנו מוכיחים את עדיפות הכבש על פני העז מהעולות המוקרבות במוספי החגים‪ ,‬יש לזכור שיש בחגים גם דרישה‬
‫קבועה להביא חטאת‪ ,‬והיא באה תמיד שעיר עזים! עולה אפוא שכל עוד מדובר בעולה או בזבח שלמים – יש נטייה‬
‫מובהקת אל הכבש‪ ,‬אך כשעוברים לקורבן החטאת‪ ,‬יש מקום של כבוד דווקא לשעיר העזים‪.‬‬
‫הדבר בולט גם בחנוכת הנשיאים‪ .‬נבחן למשל את קורבנו של נשיא שבט יהודה‪ַ" :‬פּר ֶאָחד ֶבּן ָבָּקר ַא ִיל ֶאָחד ֶכֶּבשׂ ֶאָחד ֶבּן‬
‫ְשָׁנתוֹ ְלֹעָלה‪ְ .‬שִׂﬠיר ִﬠִזּים ֶאָחד ְלַחָטּאת‪ .‬וְּלֶזַבח ַהְשָּׁלִמים ָבָּקר ְשַׁנ ִים ֵאיִלם ֲחִמָשּׁה ַﬠתּוּ ִדים ֲחִמָשּׁה ְכָּבִשׂים ְבֵּני ָשָׁנה ֲחִמָשּׁה ֶזה‬
‫ָק ְרַבּן ַנְחשׁוֹן ֶבּן ַﬠִמּיָנָדב" )במדבר ז'‪ ,‬טו‪-‬יז(‪ .‬לקורבן עולה ולזבח שלמים הביא כל נשיא כבשים )לצד בהמות נוספות‪ ,‬אך‬
‫ללא עזים(‪ ,‬אך לקורבן חטאת נבחר דווקא שעיר עזים‪ .‬אין צורך לומר שגם ביום הכיפורים‪ ,‬החטאות המכפרות על העדה‬
‫ועל הבית הן שני שעירי עזים שהאחד מוקרב חטאת והשני הולך לעזאזל‪.‬‬
‫מדוע אם כן‪ ,‬הכבש מתאים יותר לעולה ולזבח שלמים ואילו השעיר מתאים יותר לחטאת? מלבי"ם הציע שהדבר קשור‬
‫בתהליך התשובה שמתבטא בשעיר יותר מאשר בכבש‪:‬‬

‫"וכן במה שהקדים פה שעירה לכשבה נוכל לתת טעם על פי המבואר בסוטה )דף לג ע"ב(‪ ,‬דבחטאת שעירה ניכר בין חטאת‬
‫לעולה והחוטא מתבייש‪ ,‬לא כן בחטאת כשבה דמכסא באליה‪ ,‬ולא קבע הכתוב מקום בין חטאת לעולה שלא לבייש עוברי‬
‫עבירה‪ ...‬שלפי זה חטאת שעירה יש לה מעלה‪ ,‬דהעובר דבר עבירה ומתבייש – מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו‪ .‬לזה‬
‫)מלבי"ם ויקרא ד'‪ ,‬לב(‪.‬‬ ‫הקדימו"‬

‫לדעתו‪ ,‬מביא השעירה למשכן מצהיר בריש גלי שהוא מביא חטאת‪ ,‬שלא כמו מביא הכבשה‪ .‬לפיכך‪ ,‬מעדיפה התורה את‬
‫השעירה‪ ,‬מפני שבהצהרה של האדם שהוא חוטא ושהוא מבקש כפרה‪ ,‬מתחולל תהליך נפשי פנימי של הכרה בחטא‬
‫ומודעות עצמית שיש בה ענווה ושפלות רוח‪.‬‬

‫ברצוני לפתח את דברי מלבי"ם בכיוון הסימבולי‪ .‬קשה אומנם לקבוע מסמרות בסמליות שנלווית לכל אחד משני בעלי‬
‫חיים אלו‪ ,‬הקרובים ברוחם זה לזה‪ .‬ובכל זאת‪ ,‬מסתבר שלא רק הזקן המעטר את זכרי העזים מבחין בינם לבין כבשים‪.‬‬
‫הכבש הוא הצאן הכנוע ההולך באופן מסודר בעדרים עדרים‪ .‬הוא גם מסור ביד האדם ובעליו נהנה גם מצמרו הרב וגם‬
‫מבשרו השמן‪ :‬לא במקרה התורה דורשת את הקרבת האליה של הכבש )ג'‪ ,‬ט( – ביטוי לבשרו הטוב והשמן‪ .‬גם לעז‬
‫נודעה חשיבות במשק הבית‪ ,‬ויתרונה הגדול הוא בעיקר בנתינת החלב )אם כי גם ביחס לכך יש להעיר שחלב הכבשים‬
‫הוא עשיר‪ ,‬חמאתי ושומני יותר מחלב העזים(‪ .‬בשר העז אינו רווח במסעדות יוקרה‪ ,‬ורוב תעשיית הבגדים נשענת על‬
‫צמר כבשים‪ .‬אולם יתרון יש לעז על פני הכבש בכל הקשור לצורת החיים הטבעית‪-‬פראית‪ .‬העז היא בעל חיים גמיש יותר‬
‫מאשר הכבש ועל כן יכולה להתנהל על הרים וסלעים‪ ,‬והיא אינה נוטה לחיים עדריים כמו הכבש‪ .‬אפשר לגדל אותה גם‬
‫ועל כן מסתדרים ]‪[3‬בתנאים קשים והיא נחשבת בעל חיים עמיד ובריא‪ .‬העזים הם "יצורים נבונים‪ ,‬חזקים ובטוחים"‪,‬‬
‫ומעורם יצרו אוהלים שיחזיקו מעמד מול פגעי הטבע ]‪[4‬היטב בטבע הפראי )ככל הנראה השם 'עז' מהמילה עוֹז(‪,‬‬
‫כל זאת בניגוד לקונוטציות שנלוות לעזים‪" ,‬הכבשים הן פסיביות וחסרות ]‪)[5‬כמו בשמות כ"ו‪ ,‬ז; שיר השירים א'‪ ,‬ה(‪.‬‬
 ‫הפינוק ]‪[6‬הגנה‪ ,‬ולכן רווחת במקרא התמונה המדמה את ישראל לתעיית הכבשים )ישעיה נ"ג‪ ,‬ו; תהלים קי"ט‪ ,‬קסו("‪.‬‬
‫של הכבש בא לידי ביטוי בסוגיה במסכת שבת שמנסה לברר כיצד בעלי חיים יכולים לצאת בשבת לרשות הרבים‪.‬‬
‫עקרונית‪ ,‬אדם מצווה גם על שביתת בהמתו )שמות כ"ג‪ ,‬יב(‪ ,‬אולם מותר לבהמה לצאת עם משאות שעליה העשויים‬
‫לשמירתה או שהיא זקוקה לו )כשם שלאדם מותר לצאת עם בגד שעליו(‪ .‬המשנה אומרת לגבי כבשות‪ְ " :‬וֵאין ָה ְרֵחִלים‬
‫יוְֹצאוֹת ֲחנוּנוֹת" )שבת דף נ"ד ע"ב(‪ ,‬והגמרא מעלה כמה אפשרויות להבין משפט זה‪ .‬מסוף‬

‫הסוגיה שם מסתבר שהגמרא הבינה ש"חנונות" בא מלשון חנינה והכוונה היא לדבר מה שהיו נוהגים לעשות מתוך רחמים‬
‫על הכבשות‪ .‬הרי הסוגיה בתרגום לעברית‪:‬‬
‫"ישב רב אחא בר עולא לפני רב חסדא ואמר‪ :‬משעה שגוזזין אותה טומנין לה צמר גפן בשמן ומניחים על מצח הכבשה‬
‫כדי שלא תצטנן‪ .‬אמר לו רב חסדא‪ :‬אם כך – עשיתהּ ]מהכבשה[ מר עוקבא ]=שהיה ראש הגולה[‪.‬‬
‫"אלא ישב רב פפא בר שמואל לפני רב חסדא ואמר‪ :‬בשעה שכורעת ללדת טומנין לה שני צרורות צמר ספוגים בשמן‬
‫ומניחים לה אחת על המצח ואחת על הרחם כדי שתתחמם‪ .‬אמר לו רב נחמן‪ :‬אם כך – עשיתהּ ]מהכבשה[ ילתא ]=אשתו‬
‫של רב נחמן[‪.‬‬
‫"אלא אמר רב הונא‪ :‬עץ אחד יש בכרכי הים וחנון שמו‪ ,‬ומביאים קיסם ומניחים לה בחוטמה כדי שתתעטש ויפלו‬
‫)שבת דף נ"ד ע"ב(‪.‬‬ ‫תולעים שבראשה"‬

‫בין אם הטיפול בכבשה מזכיר את הטיפול בראש הגולה ובין אם הוא מזכיר את הטיפול באשתו של רב נחמן‪ ,‬יש להודות‬
‫שמדובר בטיפול מפנק שלא מוצאים כמותו לרוב ביחס לבעלי חיים‪ .‬כאמור‪ ,‬יש בכבשה דבר מה שמורה על נחת ועל‬
‫]‪[7‬פינוק‪ ,‬בעל חיים שזקוק להגנה‪ ,‬זקוק – כלשון הגמרא – לרחמים‪.‬‬

‫לאור דברינו ניתן לחזור לגישה של מלבי"ם אך מכיוון המטען הסמלי שנילווה לשני בעלי חיים אלו‪ .‬העז התקיפה‬
‫מתאימה יותר לבעל התשובה שצריך להתגבר על מבוכתו ולהודות בחטאו‪ .‬העז מתאימה יותר למי שחש אשמה מאשר‬
‫הכבש הנינוח הצועד לאיטו והבטוח בעצמו‪ .‬כפי שכבר התברר‪ ,‬עיקר עבודת החטאת הוא בחיטוי המזבח מפני טומאה;‬
‫לשם כך יש צורך בדם של צאן חזק ואיתן‪ ,‬שיש בכוחו לבטא עוצמה ותקיפות‪ .‬בניגוד לזה‪ ,‬הקורבנות שעולים על המזבח‬
‫כעולה וכזבח שלמים צריכים להיות בעלי בשר שמן וכאלו שמסמלים נחת רוח‪.‬‬

‫לאור כך ברור מדוע בפרק ד' אופציית חטאת העזים מקדימה את חטאת הכבש‪ ,‬אך האם יש בדבר זה גם בכדי להורות‬
‫שמלכתחילה עדיף להביא עז? אין לדבר ראיות של ממש‪ ,‬אך כבר הערתי קודם שניסוח הפסוקים אינו מעלה את שתי‬
‫אפשרויות בעלי החיים בהקבלה‪ ,‬אלא נדמה שעקרונית יש להביא עז )" ְוֵהִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְשִׂﬠיַרת ִﬠִזּים ְתִּמיָמה ְנֵקָבה" – ד'‪,‬‬
‫כח(‪ ,‬אך אם היה מי שבחר להביא כבש – עליו להביאה נקבה תמימה )" ְוִאם ֶכֶּבשׂ ָיִביא ָק ְרָבּנוֹ ְלַחָטּאת ְנֵקָבה ְתִמיָמה‬
‫ְיִביֶאָנּה" – ד'‪ ,‬לב(‪ .‬מניסוחים אלו אכן נראה שהעז נזכרת ראשונה כי יש עדיפות מסוימת בהקרבתה‪ .‬זאת ועוד‪ ,‬לאחר‬
‫שעמדנו על החשיבות שבשילוב המונח "לריח ניחוח" בחטאת היחיד‪ ,‬יש להעיר שמונח זה נזכר בחטאת שבאה שעירה אך‬
‫לא בזו שבאה כבשה‪ .‬מאחר שמונח זה סותר את אווירת החובה המונחת בבסיס הבאת חטאת‪ ,‬אפשר לראות את שתי‬
‫החתימות כבעלות מטען אסוציאטיבי שונה‪ .‬חטאת השעירה נחתמת כך‪ְ " :‬וִהְקִטיר ַהֹכֵּהן ַהִמְּזֵבָּחה ְל ֵריַח ִניֹחַח ַלה' ְוִכֶפּר ָﬠָליו‬
‫ַהֹכֵּהן ְו ִנְסַלח לוֹ" )ד'‪ ,‬לא(‪ ,‬ואילו חתימת חטאת הכבשה נחתמת כך‪ְ " :‬וִהְקִטיר ַהֹכֵּהן ֹאָתם ַהִמְּזֵבָּחה ַﬠל ִאֵשּׁי ה' ְוִכֶפּר ָﬠָליו‬
‫ַהֹכֵּהן ַﬠל ַחָטּאתוֹ ֲאֶשׁר ָחָטא ְו ִנְסַלח לוֹ" )ד'‪ ,‬לה(‪ .‬שם ה' נזכר בשתי החתימות‪ ,‬אך‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬אצל העז הוא משולב בביטויי‬
‫הרצון והפיוס – "ְלֵריַח ִניֹחַח ַלה'"‪ ,‬ואילו בחטאת הכבשה הוא משולב כחלק מתיאור מקום ההקרבה‪ַ" :‬ﬠל ִאֵשּׁי ה'"‪.‬‬
‫בהחלט ייתכן שהצירוף "על אשי ה'" משלים ברמז את 'ריח הניחוח' החסר‪ ,‬מפני שבאש המזבח יש עולות וזבחי שלמים‪,‬‬
‫והחטאת מוקטרת כעת על גביהם‪ ,‬על אשי ה'‪ .‬ובכל זאת‪ ,‬חיסרון המונח 'לריח ניחוח' מעלה את החשד שהחטאת העדיפה‬
‫]‪[8‬היא שעירת עזים ולא הכבש‪.‬‬
‫מה שמחליף את ביטויי הנדיבות בחטאת השעיר זו ההבלטה שהקורבן בא על חטא‪ .‬הדבר ניכר בהשוואת הלשון שנאמרת‬
‫ביחס לכבשה‪ְ " :‬וִכֶפּר ָﬠָליו ַהֹכֵּהן – ְו ִנְסַלח לוֹ"‪ ,‬ללשון הארוכה והמלאה שנאמרת בחתימת השעירה‪ְ " :‬וִכֶפּר ָﬠָליו ַהֹכֵּהן ַﬠל‬
‫ַחָטּאתוֹ ֲאֶשׁר ָחָטא ְו ִנְסַלח לוֹ"‪ .‬אין ספק שהמגמה העיקרית של שתי האופציות היא הכפרה שהאדם נזקק לה וחיטוי‬
‫המזבח‪ .‬אך ייתכן – ואני כותב זאת בהיסוס – שההבדל אינו מקרי‪ ,‬ובמכוון נאמר דווקא ביחס לחטאת שבאה שעירה‬
‫שהיא מפיקה ריח ניחוח‪ .‬כאמור‪ ,‬השעיר קשור בטבורו אל החטאת‪ ,‬יותר מאשר הכבש‪ .‬מביא השעירה זוכה לעשות ריח‬
‫ניחוח לקונו וחטאו נשכח ומכופר‪ .‬גם המביא כבש יזכה לכפרה‪ ,‬אך ריח ניחוח אין כאן‪.‬‬
[1] The Hittite Laws (Translated by A. Goetze), # 179
[2].252 '‫ עמ‬,‫ חלק א‬,‫ ויקרא‬,‫מילגרום‬
[3] J. W. Vancil, "Goat, Goatherd", ABD, vol. 2, p. 1040.
[4].1040 '‫ עמ‬,3 ‫ הערה‬,‫ לעיל‬,‫ונסיל‬
[5] :‫ על כך ראו‬J. J. Pilch, "House and Hearth", Bible Today 31 (1993), pp. 292-299.
[6] J. W. Vancil, "Sheep, Shepherd", ABD, vol. 5, p. 1190.
[7] ‫ אך ייתכן שלדיוננו קשורה העובדה שבאכדית המילה‬,‫ אינני יודע האם מבחינה לשונית באמת ניתן להסיק דבר מה מהנתון הבא‬ḥānû ‫ והיא באה‬,‫היא ָשמן‬
.‫ בישיבה על האדמה ובמנוחה‬,‫ 'חנו' קשור בחנייה‬.'‫בצירוף 'כבשה שמנה‬
[8] ,'‫ " ְוִהְקִטיָרם ַהֹכֵּהן ַהִמְּזֵבָּחה ֶלֶחם ִאֶשּׁה ְלֵריַח ִניֹחַח ָכּל ֵחֶלב ַלה'" )ג‬:‫ המונח "ריח ניחוח" חותם את שלמי העז‬,‫ אך גם בזבח שלמים‬,‫אינני יודע מה פשר הדבר‬
.(‫ יא‬,'‫ " ְוִהְקִטירוֹ ַהֹכֵּהן ַהִמְּזֵבָּחה ֶלֶחם ִאֶשּׁה ַלה'" )ג‬:‫טז( וחסר בשלמי הכבש‬

Rabbi Moshe Heigh writes:13

A fascinating piece of Agada exists at the end of Tractate Krisos (28A-28B), relevant to what we
have talked about thus far. The Azara [courtyard] of the Bais Hamikdosh [Temple] is personified as
having “screamed out” about certain matters. One fervent plea of the Holy Temple itself was that a
sinful Kohen Gadol [High Priest], be expelled from serving in that most sacred place. You might be
aware that during the second Bais Hamikdosh, some kohanim gedolim [High Priests] were unworthy
of their positions.

One such individual was Yissachar of Kfar Barkai, who honored himself while degrading Hashem’s
holy korbonos. What was his irreverent deed? He used to wrap silk over his hands while performing
the service in the Holy Temple. Rashi explains that he wished to “protect” his hands from becoming
“soiled” with the flesh and blood of the sacrifices. This Gemara is also found in Pesachim 57A, and
there Rashi adds some insight.

Yissachar’s act was against halacha [law] because the protective material he wrapped over his hands
constituted a chatzitza [separation] between his skin and the korbonos he offered. Furthermore, it
was disrespectful to Hashem’s avoda [divine service], for a kohen [priest] to care so much about
“getting his hands dirty” with the blood of korbonos [sacrifices]. It was a great privilege to do the
avoda [service], and “donning work gloves” reflected a major attitude problem on his part. Now you
will see the connection this has with today’s subject.

The Gemara wonders: what ever happened to Yissachar the Kohen Gadol? Yanai the king was sitting
at a meal with his wife, the queen. They were having a debate about today’s topic! The king
maintained that goats are preferable to sheep for offerings. The queen asserted that the opposite is
true; sheep are better. (As proven earlier, they were both incorrect - the animals are equal in status.)
They decided to consult Yissachar of Kfar Barkai, since he was a Kohen Gadol and supposedly an
expert in such matters, being busy with sacrifices every day.

They inquired of him, and this was his response: “If goats are superior, why are they not used for the
korbon tamid?” In other words, Yissachar felt that sheep are obviously preferred for offerings in
general, since it says in Parshas Pinchas that they are prescribed for the daily korbon.

13
http://www.jewlight.org/torahmax/rabbi_moshe_heigh/Limited_Facts_Are_Dangerous.pdf
The queen is correct! Note that Yissachar was making a major error, as explained above. Neither
sheep nor goats are considered more choice animals, based on the Mishna in Krisos. The fact that
they are utilized for the korbon tamid does not mean that they are always superior. The words he said
were not considered blasphemous, although they were mistaken. It was the MANNER in which he
communicated to the king and queen.

The Gemara records that as he spoke, he pointed or gestured with his hands to bring across his point.
Rashi clarifies that his tone and manner were considered arrogant and disrespectful before the king.
This was viewed as rebelliousness.14 The king decreed that Yissachar’s right hand be cut off as a
punishment for his insolence. The clever Kohen Gadol bribed the law enforcers to amputate his left
hand instead of his right. When the king heard about this, he insisted that his right hand be severed
as well, and the edict was fulfilled.

Upon hearing this incident, Rav Yosef proclaimed, “Blessed be Hashem, who brought Yissachar of
Kfar Barkai to his just payment!” Rabainu Gershom elucidates the statement: those same hands
which had denigrated Hashem’s holy sacrifices (with silk coverings to protect them from animal
blood) were now cut off.

Rav Ashi made an observation about Yissachar: he was not even familiar with the Mishna cited
above, that sheep and goats are considered equal in importance. Just because the daily sacrifice is of
lambs, that does not prove that they are superior.

In an effort to make sense of this enigmatic piece of haggada/history we turn to the

midrashic/chassidic masters to forge a connection between the king and the queen, the goats vs. the
sheep and possible biblical archetypes, that of the character of Jacob vs Esau in determining what
type of spiritual being is superior, a tzaddik or a Baal Teshuva.

14
Also notice that Yissachar favored the queen’s opinion over that of her royal husband, since he “poskined ” [rendered a legal
decision] that sheep win over goats. Perhaps this helped incur the king’s wrath.
 Choze Mi Lublin: Divrei Emes Parcha HaChodesh

Rabbi Perl writes:_15

What really is transpiring in this story? Apart from a medieval tale of intrigue what

deeper message is being conveyed? Why is this argument between king and queen so important

to them that they need to summon an expert to resolve their dispute? Sounds like a dream job for

a Rabbi. The wife says she prefers Sollys the husband says Kai Feng, send the Rabbi in to

sample both and issue his ruling. Why does the king react as bitterly as he does by dismembering

the High Priest and why would another Rabbi come along and insist he deserved it because he

15
https://www.theyeshiva.net/jewish/7241/womens-toldos-class-a-king-and-queen-debate-lamb-chops-goat-meat
made a mistake?

The Magid of Mezritch in a few brief enigmatic words sums it all up: “This is the story

of Jacob and Esau.” For many generations great scholars and Chassidic masters grappled over

the meaning of those words each offer a different perspective perhaps reflecting different

realities in their own era. This is a suggested contemporary explanation:

A sheep is a docile animal who roams always as part of a flock. He is a conformist who

goes with the flow his bleat is soft as he quietly complies with what is requested of him. A goat

on the other is aggressive, often rebellious, doing its own thing. Threaten it, and it can gore

you with its horns, It’s “beh” is more vociferous than the sheep’s “meh.” Goats are browsers,

jumpers, and see things as better on the other side of the fence. Goats always find a way out

of the enclosed pasture, while sheep remain content inside. Sheep with their very thick wool

tend to repel dirt and don’t require the more frequent cleansing necessary for a goat.

Yakov ish tam yoshev ohalim – Jacob was a docile man who remained within the tents –

he was content inside. He stayed with the pack – his people, an unyielding conformist to all the

dictates and mandates of his faith. Esav yoideah tzayid ish hasodeh – Esau was the hunter, the

aggressive one, who went it alone, over the fence and into the fields. Indeed, the Torah calls

Esau ish sair, which translates literally as a “hairy man,” though the word sair can also translate

as goat.

Rivkah oheves es Yakov says the Torah: “Rebecca loved Jacob.” The queen said that
lamb is better. It is better to be conformist – to adhere unquestioningly to life’s demands and to

G‑d’s call. The world is full of risk. We need to concentrate our efforts on insulating our children

– protecting them from exposure. Contact with the threatening elements and impediments that

infest our society can only be counterintuitive and counterproductive. The goat has no real place

in Yiddishkeit and if it jumps the fence, then cut it loose – let it go.

Vaye’ehav Yitzchak es Esav – Yitzchak – Isaac – the king loved Esau – he prefers the

goat – the non-conformist – that’s where we have to concentrate our energies, that’s the soul we

have to seek out, to nurture, to develop, to expose the latent potential contained within. Esau may

be a goat but he is not beyond redemption. So he isn’t content within – he likes to jump the fence

– but what he does on the other side comes down to how you regard him and how much attention

you pay to him. Left to his own devices he can wreak havoc. But if you reach out to him then

you can harness him to a point where rather than goring everything in his wake, he could make a

very real difference in his own way in his slice of the world.

So what is better – lamb or goat? This is the big debate between the king and queen –

between Isaac and Rebecca, and to one extent or another, this debate rages on in our present day

and age between those who choose to concentrate all their energies on the insular life and those

who insist we have to step out into the world and confront our reality.

The queen insists the ghetto walls have to be built ever higher and woe betide those goats

that choose to jump over. Once you cross the line you’re on your own. We have plenty of Jacobs

to work with - we cannot go after the Esau gone astray.

 The king insists no matter that goat is part of the flock. Even as he jumps the wall, the

family is incomplete when one brother has gone astray. Yes we have lots to do with the lambs,

with the Jacobs, but someone’s got to go over the wall and after the goat. Because when you find

him, there’s something incredible inside him that will benefit the entire flock.

Comes along Issachar the High Priest - the bastion of spirituality – G‑d’s ambassador as

it were to the people and declares “lamb is better.” After all G‑d instructs that the lamb be

brought close; that it be brought on the altar in service to Him daily – this is with which we begin

and end our day. But this High Priest was wrong – oh so wrong – and he paid a heavy price with

his very hand.

The unique quality of every Cohen, as inherited from the very first one, Aaron the High

Priest was to “love peace and pursue peace, love all of creation and bring them close to the

Torah.” Yes, the end goal is to bring people back onto the altar of G‑d, to bring them closer,

more in touch with their roots – but we don’t restrict that effort, we don’t limit that energy to just

those who are already conformists. Ohev es habriyois – love all of creation – “if a sheep be his

offering…if a goat be his offering,” both are equal. Both deserve our time as they are integral

components in the kaleidoscope of Jewish experience and endeavor.

The common analogy for the right hand is as per the words of our Sages: Yemin

mikareves – “the right hand draws near.” It symbolizes the notion of bringing closer those who

might have otherwise drifted – jumped the fence – abandoned the flock – wandered from their
 source. When you lose sight of the message – when you forget what you represent as a High

Priest – reaching out, not just to the Jacobs but also to the Esau’s – especially to the Esau’s –

then you’ve forfeited your right hand. Esau, like Jacob, is part of the family – and when we lose

sight of that, then to one extent or another we all bear the consequences.

Amputation

Ziona Isaacs writes:16

Although there is no explicit statement in the Bible regarding prosthetics, there are implied

references to amputees in the Midrashic description of the wording in the Bible. At the time of the

giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, the midrash explains that all physical defects among the

Children of Israel were healed and there were no amputees among them (Midrash Tanchuma,

Exodus 19:8). The Talmud which was recorded in the 5th century C.E., however, does discuss

amputees and prosthetics directly. The Talmud assigns labels to amputees based on the limb and

the point of amputation. A person whose hands or arms have been cut off is referred to as a Gidem,

while a person whose foot or leg has been cut off is called a Kite’a (Brachot 58b Rashi).

Accordingly, the Talmud discusses different degrees of upper limb amputation beginning with

complete amputation at the shoulder (Menachot 37a) through limited amputation of the hand at

the fingers (Tosefta Bechorot 5:2). The most common assumption of a Gidem is one whose

16
Historical Perspective of Prosthetic Devices and the Halachic Ramifications: Stern
College for Women Yeshiva University April 25, 2017
amputation is at the level of the elbow (Arachin 19b, Orech Chayim 27).

In ancient times, amputation was used as a form of punishment. In the Code of

Hammurabi, limb amputation was the designated punishment for one who commits several

offenses, such as a son who strikes his father. Similarly, in Tanach the Caananite King Adoni-

Bezek has his thumbs and great toes amputated (Judges 1:6-7) as just revenge for the

many enemy kings he had mutilated by amputating their thumbs and toes so that they could no

longer hold arms to fight or run away.

Our Daf relates the story of Yissachar of the village Barkai, a Priest who showed disregard for

the temple service by

wrapping his hands in silk to avoid getting them dirty while performing his ministerial duties.

In an exchange with the Hasmonean king, he was punished for his contempt of the government

and his hands were amputated. The amputations of priest Yissachar of the village Barkai were

to send a strong warning to respect G-d and his instructions (i.e., priestly service). Yissachar’s

punishment was as such because he viewed G-d’s work as too demeaning by refusing to handle

the sacrificial meat with his bare hands.

Though amputations of limbs as a form of punishment have been popular for many

centuries, such punishments actually do not exist in Jewish law. When the Bible commands a

punishment entailing the amputation of a limb, the phrase is not to be taken literally. For

example, the biblical versus “hand for a hand” (Exodus 21:24) and “thou shalt cut off her hand”

(Deuteronomy 25:12) are translated in Jewish Oral Law as monetary payment (Bava Kama 83b).

The latter phrase describes the response to a wife who gets involved in a dispute regarding her

husband and thereby has to remunerate the person she attacked for the humiliation caused. As

for the anecdote in the Prophets of King David commanding that the assassinators of Ish-Bosheth

have their hands and feet amputated, the accepted interpretation is that he decreed that they be

cut off after the people were dead and therefore it is not considered an amputation (Samuel B

4:12).

38
 So, You Want to Raise Sheep or Goats?

MELANIE BARKLEY writes:_17

There are a number of management skills that each sheep or goat producer should

have to be successful.

Raising sheep or goats for profit can be a satisfying enterprise. However, there are a

number of management skills that each sheep or goat producer should have to be successful.

Each livestock enterprise has different resources: land, labor, capital, feed, and management. To

raise sheep or goats sustainably, you must manage these resources. In addition to managing

resources, new producers must ask themselves, what do I need to get started? This question

involves considerations for the type of animals a producer wishes to raise as well as where to

find these animals, how to select them, and what equipment will be needed for the operation.

Producers also need to consider how they will feed their animals and what health care practices

they will use to keep the animals healthy. Savvy producers will let markets identify the type of

animals they should raise in order to generate a profit. This fact sheet may be used as a guide

17
https://extension.psu.edu/so-you-want-to-raise-sheep-or-goats

39
for those sheep and goat producers getting started in the industry.

What Type of Animals Should I Raise?

The first thing to decide when starting a new sheep or goat enterprise is what type of

animals to raise. This decision should directly reflect the markets a producer has available to

sell sheep or goats, and consider the resources available on the farm and the producer's

individual goals.

Sheep and goats may be used to produce meat, wool, fiber, or milk. The intended

products will determine what breeds will be best suited for the operation.

Many producers choose to breed females to produce lambs or kids to sell for breeding

stock or market animals. Other producers may prefer to purchase weaned animals, also known

as feeders, to raise to market weight.

Producers can start by determining if they wish to raise purebred or commercial stock.

A purebred operation typically raises animals of one breed. Often a purebred operation will have

all registered animals that can also be sold through purebred sales. A commercial operation may

have unregistered purebred animals, or they may have crossbred animals. Crossbred animals

have the benefit of hybrid vigor, which is simply the ability of crossbred offspring to increase

in productivity over the average of the breeds that were part of the cross. This means that a

crossbred lamb or kid could grow faster, or a crossbred female could produce more milk for its

40
offspring.

Selecting a Breed

Each livestock breed has different traits that they are recognized for. Breed associations

can provide information on those traits and help you narrow your decision regarding what breed

or breeds fit best with your operation.

Sheep breeds are often divided into meat-producing (ram) and wool-producing (ewe)

breeds. In addition, some sheep breeds are known as hair sheep because they shed their wool.

The more common hair sheep breeds are commonly used for meat production. Sheep also have

breeds used for milk production.

Some goat breeds are noted for their meat production, while others are recognized for

milk production or fiber production.

While many more breeds exist in the United States, some of the more common breeds

are listed below.

Sheep

Meat sheep

41
Cheviot

Dorset

Hampshire

Southdown

Suffolk

Tunis

Wool sheep

Border Leicester

Columbia

Corriedale

Cotswold

Lincoln

Merino

Rambouillet

Hair sheep

Dorper

Katahdin

42
Dairy sheep

Awassi

East Friesian

Lacaune

Goats

Meat goat

Boer

Kiko

Spanish

Dairy goat

Alpine

LaMancha

Nubian

Oberhasli

Saanen

Toggenburg

43
 Fiber goat

Angora

Cashmere

Choose breeding males that will complement the outstanding traits in your females and

improve their weaknesses. Always use the best ram or buck you can afford to improve the

genetics in your flock or herd. The male has a great influence on performance because his

offspring could remain in the flock or herd for a number of years.

Be conscious of selecting and keeping good productive females that will produce two

lambs or kids per year without assistance and maintain their body condition without becoming

overly thin or fat. The goal for the number of lambs or kids born per female may vary depending

on available feed resources.

Selection Principles

There are two methods to select livestock: animal performance and visual appraisal.

Animals should first be selected on performance and then the higher performing animals should

be evaluated visually.

44
 Performance selection principles evaluate measurable traits such as birth weight,

weaning weight, postweaning weight, wool or fiber yield and quality, or milk yield and quality.

Producers who evaluate growth traits should adjust weaning weights to account for the

sex of the lamb or kid, age of the dam, and birth and rearing type. Birth type refers to birth as a

single, twin, or triplet. Rearing type refers to how that lamb or kid was raised: single, twin, or

triplet.

Progressive sheep and goat producers with registered animals can enroll their flock or

herd in the National Sheep Improvement Program to generate estimated breeding values (EBVs)

for their animals. These EBVs use genetic linkages to assess genetic merit for growth, carcass,

maternal, and wool traits. EBVs allow producers to evaluate animal genetics without

environmental influences. Commercial producers can utilize performance data when selecting

a new ram or buck. More information on estimated breeding values can be found at the National

Sheep Improvement Program website.

Visual animal appraisal evaluates aspects such as structural correctness, muscling, body

capacity, and breed character. Evaluating structural correctness allows producers to identify

animals with defects that are not apparent through performance evaluation.

45
Breeding sheep should exhibit these ideal characteristics. Image: Pennsylvania 4-

H Livestock Judging Manual

46
 Purebred producers who raise registered stock should become familiar with breed

characteristics associated with the breed they raise, such as:

ear length and shape

color on the ears, muzzle, and feet

hair color on the legs

amount of wool covering on the head, face, or legs

defects that disqualify animals from registration

47
Meat goats should exhibit these ideal characteristics

48
 Equipment Needs

After the appropriate animals are chosen for the operation, the equipment necessary to

maintain those animals must be gathered. Sheep and goat operations need a variety of

equipment. Basic equipment includes feeders, water tubs or watering systems, and health care

equipment. Larger operations often use equipment for handling sheep or goats.

Water

Water is possibly the most important nutrient because it impacts feed consumption. Poor

quality water or not enough water can decrease feed intake and result in decreased animal

performance. Producers can supply water using anything from buckets to troughs to automatic

watering systems. As with feeders, many different styles are available. The key is that water

should be fresh, clean, and available at all times.

Pasture Systems

Most sheep and goats graze pastures throughout the spring, summer, and fall. Producers

49
should pay close attention to pasture height in an attempt to prevent internal parasite infections.

Pastures should be subdivided to provide an adequate amount of forage for the grazing time,

often four to five days. Animals should be moved to a new section of pasture by the time forage

has been grazed down to 4 inches in height. Most parasite larvae can be found in the first 2

inches of growth, so rotating animals to a new grazing area before the animals graze the pasture

too close to the ground helps prevent parasite infection.

A good quality perimeter fence contains livestock inside the pasture and keeps predators

out. Many producers prefer high-tensile fencing with some wires electrified, while other

producers prefer woven wire fencing. Subdivision fencing divides larger fields into smaller

areas to better manage forage growth. Subdivision fencing typically ranges from two- or three-

wire permanent fencing to polywire with step-in posts or electric net fence. Both the polywire

and electric net fence types incorporate wire filaments into the plastic strands.

Shearing Equipment

Most producers shear sheep or fiber goats in the spring prior to turning them out to

pasture. Beginning producers often hire professionals to shear their animals. While these

producers don't need to own shearing equipment, they do need an area where a shearer can set

up their equipment and a nearby pen where animals can be grouped and easily caught. Producers

often use a second pen to hold animals after they are shorn.

Health Care Equipment

50
 Routine health care employs practices to prevent disease. Common practices include

tagging, vaccinating, docking, castrating, and deworming. These practices require basic

equipment such as tags and tagging pliers, syringes and needles, elastrator bands, a band

expander tool, and a drench syringe or drench gun. Tagging is considered a health care piece of

equipment because tagging is important to identify treated animals.

Producers may also wish to disbud their goats to prevent horn growth. This is often

performed with an electric dehorner shortly after the horn buds bread through the skin.

Disbudding prevents future injury to other animals and handlers.

Hoof trimmers or foot shears are another small equipment item. Hooves may be trimmed

by setting the animal on their rump, tying the animal to a panel, and lifting each foot, or by

placing the animal in a turn table that turns the animal on its side. Flocks and herds with foot

diseases will also have a footbath tub and panels to contain animals in the footbath.

Reproduction and Breeding Seasons

Gestation length for sheep and goats is similar and takes about five months, varying

slightly among breeds and species. Meat sheep breeds have a gestation length of 144 to 147

days, while wool breeds have slightly longer at 148 to 151 days. Gestation length for goats

ranges from 145 to 155 days.

51
 Most goat breeds cycle throughout the year, but most sheep breeds are photoperiod

dependent. This means that when day lengths become shorter, sheep begin to cycle. Some sheep

breeds are less photoperiod dependent than others and have the ability to breed outside the

normal fall breeding season. Sheep breeds noted for out-of-season breeding include Dorsets,

Polypay, Rambouillet, Targhee, and hair breeds.

Estrus cycles and age at puberty vary between species (Table 1). If breeding ewe lambs

or doelings, they should weigh at least 65 to 70 percent of their mature weight by the start of the

breeding season.

Table 1. Estrus cycle and age at puberty.

Species Estrus Cycle Age at Puberty

Sheep 17 days 7 to 12 months

Goats 21 days 4 to 8 months

Some producers prefer to breed sheep earlier in the breeding season in order to market

at specific times in the spring. In other situations, producers may breed earlier so that lambs or

kids are older and heavier before turning out to pasture. Research has shown that older and

heavier animals tend to be more resistant to internal parasites than younger and lighter weight

animals. In order for some breeds to become pregnant earlier in the breeding season, producers

may need to manipulate daylight hours.

52
 Producers can house animals in a barn, such as a bank barn, that limits the amount of

daylight they are exposed to. This mimics shorter day lengths and encourages those animals to

cycle. A teaser ram (a ram that was vasectomized as a lamb) can be used to stimulate ewes to

begin cycling earlier in the season. This is not necessary for goats as the buck's odor brings does

into heat very quickly.

Some producers will take this a step further and synchronize their females so that they

all come into heat, or cycle, at the same time. This is necessary for an artificial insemination

procedure and is most often accomplished with the use of a CIDR. The CIDR contains hormones

and is inserted vaginally into the females. Females receive a prostaglandin injection at the time

the CIDR is removed.

Signs of Impending Lambing or Kidding

As a ewe or doe nears her time to give birth, she exhibits several signs that the birthing

process will begin. About a month prior to lambing or kidding, the udder will begin to fill with

colostrum. This is the first milk and it contains antibodies that help protect newborn lambs and

kids from disease.

When the ewe or doe is ready to give birth, the muscles around her hips will begin to

relax and appear as if they are sinking. The vulva changes color and is most apparent with lighter

skin colors. The light pink color will change to a darker pink color. The vulva will also swell.

53
The udder will feel full and tight at this point. The ewe or doe will also refuse feed and move

away from the flock or herd. Females may also paw the bedding.

The first sign that the female is in labor is the appearance of the water bag. Within a

short period of time, the front feet and nose of the newborn should appear. This will progress as

the female pushes to expel the newborn. Once the lamb or kid is born, the mother should begin

licking to dry off the newborn and encourage the lamb or kid to stand and nurse. If the lamb or

kid is a twin, the feet of the second newborn should begin to appear soon after the first is born.

Once the birthing process is complete, many producers choose to place the female and

her offspring in a small pen, called a jug. This pen is normally sized 4 by 4 feet or 5 by 5 feet

square. At this time, check the teats to make sure the mother has milk, and dip the navel of the

lambs or kids in an iodine solution to prevent infection. Some producers also like to give the

newborns a nutritional drench at this time. The female and her offspring remain in the jug for

one to two days to bond. Jugging lambs or kids is not required, but it is recommended when

lambing or kidding in a barn or confined lot area. Lambing or kidding in barns is also

recommended whenever there is a threat from predators such as coyotes.

Pay close attention to newborns for the first couple days after birth. Newborns should

stretch when they stand and appear alert. Newborns that cry for their mother or rush to nurse as

soon as they get up likely are not receiving enough milk. Weak lambs or kids may require

feeding with a tube. Consult a veterinarian or an experienced producer for assistance.

54
 Feeding and Nutrition

All animals require water, protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals in their daily diet.

These may come from a variety of sources but should be balanced to meet nutritional

requirements. Nutrient requirements change throughout an animal's lifetime and reflect their

stage of production: growth, maintenance, breeding, pregnancy, or lactation (milk production).

Forages such as pasture and hay often meet requirements for mature animals, but they

may not meet requirements for fast-growing animals. Therefore, additional protein or energy

sources may need to be added to the ration to meet requirements.

Additional protein requirements may be met with better quality hay or through grain

sources such as soybeans or soybean meal, cottonseed or cottonseed meal, fishmeal, or linseed

meal. Additional energy requirements may be met with a variety of grain sources such as corn,

oats, wheat, barley, or spelt.

In most cases, pasture provides the most economical feed source for sheep and goats.

Pastures should be rotated to maintain high quality and help prevent internal parasite infections.

In general, animals should enter a pasture when forages are 6 to 10 inches tall. Animals should

rotate out of a pasture by the time the forage has been grazed down to 4 inches. This not only

provides high-quality feed for the animals but also helps maintain healthy plants.

55
 Grain supplements are most often used for flushing during the breeding season, the last

third of gestation, and lactation; as a creep feed for nursing lambs and kids; or for growing and

finishing lambs and kids. Flushing refers to increasing the plane of nutrition prior to and during

the breeding season to increase ovulation rates and lead to twinning. Creep feeding is the

practice of supplying good-quality grain and/or hay to young lambs and kids while they are

nursing. This boosts weight gains and body condition, or level of fatness.

Health Issues

A good indicator of healthy sheep and goats is their body condition. Body condition for

sheep and goats is scored on a five-point scale with one being emaciated and five being obese.

Sheep and goats should be maintained at an average body condition score of three. Animals with

decreasing body condition scores, or losing weight, signal a potential health issue.

The first step to keeping animals healthy is to prevent diseases from entering the farm.

This occurs through biosecurity practices. Any new animal that arrives at the farm—and animals

that leave the farm and return—should be quarantined from other animals for three to four

weeks. In addition, changing shoes and clothing after visiting locations where you had contact

with other sheep and goats can help prevent bringing diseases to your farm. Visitors to the farm

should be asked to either disinfect their shoes or wear plastic disposable boots.

56
57