Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth

Folio 9a

Rabina enquired of R. Nahman b. Isaac: What is the law of a ruler who was stricken with leprosy;⁷  [was his obligation] com pletely set aside,⁸  or was he only temporarily exempted?⁹  — He said to him: [Does he bring] of yours or of his own!¹⁰

It was taught: R. Akiba said: An anointed High Priest is exempt from all these.¹¹  Raba said: What is R. Akiba's reason? — Scripture stated, This is the offering of Aaron and his sons,¹²  [implying] that only this [one] is obligatory upon him but no other such offering¹³  is obligatory upon him.

Might it not be suggested that the All Merciful has exempted him only from the poorest offering which is¹⁴  a tenth part of an ephah¹⁵  but not¹⁶  [from those other offerings that are brought in case of] poverty and wealth!¹⁷  — his cannot be imagined at all, for it is written, And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things,¹⁸  whoever may receive atonement by everyone of these¹⁹  may also receive atonement by any of the others,²⁰  but whosoever may not obtain atonement by every one of these may not obtain atonement by any of the others.

Now, however,²¹  since it is written, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,²²  is the meaning there also that whosoever is liable for everyone of these can also become liable for any of the others and whosoever is not liable for everyone of these cannot become liable for the others! Why then have we learned that R. Akiba said: A ruler is liable for all except for hearing of the voice? — Both Abaye and Raba replied: [The expression] in any²³  is regarded by him as proof but that of in one²⁴  is not regarded by him as proof.

But why is 'in any' regarded as proof? — Because the All Merciful has written in at the end in connection with the law of the tenth part of an ephah; thus indicating that whosoever is liable to bring the tenth part of an ephah can also come under the obligation to bring any of the others. For could it have been imagined that a person may be liable for one of these offerings [alone] although he cannot become liable for any of the others, in any of these things²⁵  should have been written either in connection with the offering to the poor²⁶  or with that for the rich!²⁷

MISHNAH. [FOR THE UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION OF ANY OF] ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IN THE TORAH THE PENALTY FOR WHICH, IF COMMITTED WILFULLY, IS KARETH AND, IF COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY, A SIN OFFERING, THE INDIVIDUAL BRINGS AS AN OFFERING A LAMB OR A GOAT;²⁸  THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT;²⁹  AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST AND THE COURT BRING A BULLOCK.³⁰  IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY, THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST BRING A GOAT³¹  WHILE THE COURT BRING A BULLOCK AND A GOAT, THE BULLOCK FOR A BURNT OFFERING AND THE GOAT FOR A SIN OFFERING.³²  THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER ARE BOTH SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM TALUI,³³  BUT THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST AND THE COURT ARE EXEMPT. THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST ARE SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM WADDAI,³⁴  BUT THE COURT IS EXEMPT.

[FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION] IN RESPECT OF THE HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION],³⁵  FOR SWEARING CLEARLY WITH THE LIPS³⁶  AND FOR UNCLEANNESS RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS, THE COURT IS EXEMPT AND THE INDIVIDUAL, THE RULER³⁷  AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST ARE LIABLE, WITH THIS EXCEPTION,³⁸  THAT THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST IS NOT LIABLE FOR A TRANSGRESSION RELATING TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. SIMEON. WHAT DO THEY³⁹  BRING? A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. R. ELIEZER SAID: THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT.⁴⁰

GEMARA. It was taught: R. Simeon laid down the following rule; Wherever the individual is liable to an asham talui⁴¹  the ruler is subject to the same obligation, while an anointed High Priest and the court are exempt; and wherever the individual is liable to an asham waddai⁴¹  a ruler and an anointed High Priest are subject to the same obligation while the court is exempt. In respect of hearing of the voice, swearing clearly with the lips, and the uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things, the court is exempt while a ruler and an anointed High Priest are liable, except that the ruler is not liable in respect of heating of the voice nor the anointed High Priest in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things. Wherever an individual is liable to a sliding scale sacrifice, the ruler is subject to the same obligation while the anointed High Priest and the court are exempt.

Is not this teaching self-contradictory? First it is stated that an anointed High Priest is not liable in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things. [from which it follows that] he is exempt only in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things but that in respect of hearing of the voice and swearing clearly with the lips he is liable; now read the final clause; 'Wherever an individual is liable to a sliding scale sacrifice, the ruler is subject to the same obligation while an anointed High Priest and the court are exempt;' since the exemptions of the High Priest and that of the court were mentioned together⁴²  [it follows that] as the court is exempt from all these⁴³  so is the anointed High Priest exempt from all these.

1. Lev. V, 7, referring to the transgressions enumerated in our Mishnah.
2. Ibid. V. 11, with reference to the same transgressions.
3. Lit., 'he who comes to the hand of'.
4. Lev. IV, 22, dealing with the transgression of a ruler. Emphasis is laid on his.
5. I.e., he must be supreme in all things including wealth.
6. Lev. XXI, 10.
7. And was in consequence deposed from office.
8. Hence he is never liable to such an offering.
9. While he held office. Hence he must bring the offering now.
10. Lit., 'treasure'. As he would obviously have to bring the offering out of his own funds there can be no difference between his being in, or out of office. His wealth, which is the cause of his exemption, has not been lost or diminished by his deposition. There is, therefore, no need for him to bring an offering even after his deposition.
11. As regards the bringing of a sliding scale sacrifice.
12. Lev. VI, 13. with reference to the special priestly offering of a tenth part of an ephah.
13. I.e., the offering of a tenth part of an ephah which forms one in the series of offerings the value of which varies according to means. (V. Lev. V, 6-11.)
14. Lit., 'and what is it'.
15. V. Lev. VI, 13. and ibid. V, II.
16. Lit., 'the All Merciful did not exclude bins'.
17. A lamb or a goat for the rich who can afford it (Lev. V, 6), and turtledoves or pigeons for the pour who cannot afford it (ibid. V. 7). How, then, could R. Akiba maintain that a High Priest is exempt from these offerings if his transgression related to any of those enumerated in our Mishnah.
18. Lev. V. 13.
19. Including the offering of a tenth part of an ephah.
20. Lit., 'all of them'.
21. If deduction is to be made from 'in any', [H].
22. Ibid. v. 5; 'in one', [H].
23. Lev. V. 13 (V. p. 60, n. 14).
24. Ibid. V, 5.
25. Lev. V, 13.
26. I.e., with that of turtledoves or pigeons (ibid. v. 7).
27. A lamb or a goat (ibid. v. 6). Since, however, it was written in connection with the tenth part of an ephah (the poorest of the offerings) it must have been intended for the purpose of indicating that whosoever is exempt from that offering is also exempt from the rest. An anointed High Priest being exempt from that offering by deduction from Lev. VI, 23 (v. supra), is also exempt from all the others.
28. Lev. IV, 27ff, 32ff.
29. Ibid. 22ff
30. Ibid. IV, 3ff, 13ff. V. supra 8a
31. Num. XV, 27. V. Gemara infra.
32. Ibid. 24. V. supra 7b.
33. V. Glos. and Lev. V, 17ff.
34. V. Glos. and Lev. V, 14-16, 20-26; ibid. XIX, 20-22; ibid. XIV, 12; Num. VI, 12.
35. Lev. V, I.
36. Ibid. 4.
37. It will be shown infra that a ruler is exempt according to R. Simeon from the 'hearing of the voice', even as in the view of R. Akiba in the preceding Mishnah.
38. Lit., 'but'.
39. The ruler in the case of the two last mentioned transgressions (v. supra note 5), and the High Priest in the case of the two first mentioned.
40. Lev. IV, 22ff
41. V. Glos.
42. Lit., 'it taught … exempt'.
43. The three transgressions enumerated.

WITH THIS EXCEPTION, THAT THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST IS NOT LIABLE etc. Hezekiah said; What is A. Simeon's reason?⁶  — Because it is written,⁷  That soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly⁸  [which implies that] only he whose offering is like that of the 'assembly' [is liable];⁹  he,¹⁰  however, since his offering is not like that of the 'assembly',¹¹  is excluded. If so, [it may be asked, the offering of] a ruler also is not like that of the 'assembly'!¹²  — It is like [that of the 'assembly'] in the atonement of the Day of Atonement. If so, [it may again be asked.] the priests also are not like the 'assembly' in the atonement of the Day of Atonement!¹³  — Priests are like the 'assembly' in respect of the other commandments throughout the year. But the anointed High Priest also is like [the 'assembly'] in respect Of the other commandments of the year! — But. said Raba. say thus: He whose sin is like that of individuals; and who are they? The 'assembly'.¹⁴

R. ELIEZER SAID; THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT etc. Said R. Johanan; R. Eliezer referred only to the uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things¹⁵  because the punishment of kareth was mentioned concerning it as in the case of the fixed sin offering.¹⁶  R. Papa said; Logical argument leads to the same conclusion. For if it be imagined that R. Eliezer referred to all of them,¹⁷  consider this; Since the goat of a ruler or the bullock of an anointed High Priest corresponds to the sin offering of an individual it should also have been stated that an anointed High Priest brings a bullock in respect of a transgression relating to the 'hearing of the voice' and the 'swearing clearly with the lips'! As, however, the anointed High Priest was not mentioned, it must be concluded that the reference is only to the uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things from which the anointed High Priest is exempt.¹⁸

R. Huna son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa: How is this inferred? Is it not possible that R. Eliezer refers to all of them,¹⁹  but in the case of an anointed High Priest he holds the same opinion as R. Akiba who maintains that the anointed High Priest is exempt in the case of all of them?²⁰  — He replied to him; And does R. Akiba exempt him from the bringing of the bullock!²¹  And there is nothing more [to be said on the subject]. R. Johanan said; R. Elieser admits that he²²  does not bring a guilt offering.²³

A tanna recited before R. Shesheth: An asham talui²⁴  is offered for [the unwitting transgression of the law of] uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things. He said to him: Who could have told you this? Obviously R. Eliezer who²⁵  said: Because kareth was mentioned in connection with it, as in the case of a fixed sin offering, a goat must be offered by the ruler for it;²⁶  but R. Johanan Surely said that R. Eliezer admitted that he²²  does not bring an asham talui! — This is a difficulty.

CHAPTER III

MISHNAH. IF AN ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST COMMITTED A SIN AND SUBSEQUENTLY RELINQUISHED²⁷  HIS HIGH PRIESTHOOD,²⁸  AND SIMILARLY IF A RULER COMMITTED A SIN AND SUBSEQUENTLY LOST²⁷  HIS RANK,²⁹  THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST BRINGS³⁰  A BULLOCK, AND THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT. IF THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST RELINQUISHED²⁷  HIS HIGH PRIESTHOOD²⁸  AND COMMITTED A SIN AFTERWARDS, AND, SIMILARLY, IF A RULER LOST²⁷  HIS RANK AND COMMITTED A SIN AFTERWARDS, THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST STILL BRINGS A BULLOCK WHILE THE RULER [BRINGS THE SAME SIN OFFERING] AS A LAYMAN.

GEMARA. Now that it had to be stated [that if a High Priest] relinquished his High Priesthood

1. Lit., 'here'.
2. In the case of an offering brought by a poor man (turtledoves or pigeons) the High Priest is liable in respect of 'Hearing of the voice' and 'Swearing with the lips'.
3. In which case the High Priest is exempt, as deduced supra 9a.
4. As deduced from who is the offering', supra p. 60.
5. Though R. Akiba exempts the High Priest in this case also R. Simeon does not, as he does not accept the argument based on the text, 'And the priest shall … in any,' loc. cit.
6. I.e., why does he exempt a High Priest from transgressions relating to uncleanness of the Sanctuary and its consecrated things
7. In connection with such transgressions. (V. previous site.)
8. 'Assembly' — congregations'. Num. XIX, 20.
9. V. p. 63, n. 9.
10. Lit., 'this', the High Priest.
11. On the Day of Atonement his offering is a bullock and that of the congregation is a goat.
12. For a transgressions committed during the year a ruler brings a goat while the congregation brings a bullock. Why, then, was only a High Priest, and not also a ruler excluded?
13. The offering of the priests is the same as that of the High Priest. Since they, like him, differ from the congregation they also should be exempt like him from the same offering (v. p. 63. n. S).
14. If individuals, or a congregation, committed a sin through 'error in action', where there was no 'ignorance of the law', every one of them must bring a sin offering. A High Priest, however, is not liable to bring an offering unless his error in action was also accompanied by ignorance of the law.
15. Only in that case does a ruler bring an offering of a goat instead of a sliding scale sacrifice.
16. Which is brought by individuals only for offenses involving the penalty of kareth, if committed wittingly; and as in the case of a fixed sin offering, the offering for this offence of uncleanness to be brought by the ruler must be that of a goat. In respect, however, of transgressions relating to 'hearing of the voice' and 'swearing with the lips' which are not subject to the penalty of kareth if committed wilfully. the offering of a ruler, in the case of error, is not a goat but the same as that of a private individual — a sliding scale sacrifice.
17. I.e., that a ruler brings an offering of a goat for 'hearing of the voice', 'swearing', and uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things.
18. As suited by R. Simeon in the Mishnah.
19. V. p. 64, n. 9.
20. Cf supra p. 60. And he consequently could not have mentioned the High Priest.
21. He only exempts him from a sliding scale sacrifice. Had R. Eliezer therefore been referring to all the other offenses, he should have mentioned the High Priest as well as the ruler. [There is no warrant for the assumption that R. Akiba would not exempt the High Priest from bringing a bullock. On the other hand if R. Papa's statement was a mere suggestion, it would be devastating for his claim that logical reasoning is in support of R. Johanan. The words 'He replied … bullock' are accordingly suspect, especially as they do not occur in MS.M., v. Tosaf. Asheri.]
22. The ruler.
23. MS.M. reads asham talui. I.e., be agrees with the Mishnah supra p. 56. without differentiating between a ruler and an ordinary individual.
24. V. Glos.
25. In giving the reason why a ruler brings a goat for all offence of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things.
26. And from this the liability to an asham talui is obviously deduced.
27. Lit.,'he passed'.
28. Lit., 'from his anointing'.
29. Lit., 'from his greatness'.
30. As a sin offering.