Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth

Folio 10a

Whence are these laws derived? — [From] that which our Rabbis taught: Then let him offer for his sin³  teaches that he⁴  brings his sin offering even [if he sinned] after he relinquished office. For it might have been argued,⁵  if a ruler who brings a sin offering in case of error in action alone does not bring his sin offering⁶  after he lost his rank how much less an anointed High Priest who does not bring his sin offering in case of error in action alone but only where error in action was accompanied by ignorance of the law; hence Scripture expressly stated, 'Then let him offer for his sin,'⁷  which teaches that he brings [the same offering] for his sin even [if he sinned] after he relinquished his office.

[And in case it be argued:] Let, then [the law that] a ruler also⁸  brings [the same sin offering]⁹  be deduced by an inference from major to minor:¹⁰  If an anointed High Priest who does not bring a sin offering for error in action alone brings nevertheless [the same] sin offering¹¹  [even if he sinned] after relinquishing office, how much more should a ruler who brings a sin offering for error in action alone, bring the same sin offering¹²  [even if he sinned] after losing his rank; Scripture expressly stated, When a ruler sinneth,¹³  only when he is 'a ruler'¹⁴  but not when he is a layman.

MISHNAH. IF THEY¹⁵  COMMITTED A SIN BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED, THEY ARE REGARDED¹⁶  AS LAYMEN. R. SIMEON SAID: IF THEIR SIN CAME TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED THEY ARE LIABLE, BUT IF AFTER THEY WERE APPOINTED THEY ARE EXEMPT. WHO IS MEANT BY RULER? A KING; FOR IT IS STATED IN THE SCRIPTURES, ANY OF ALL THE THINGS WHICH THE LORD HIS GOD HATH COMMANDED,¹⁷  HE ABOVE WHOM THERE IS NONE BUT THE LORD HIS GOD.

GEMARA. Whence are these laws derived? — [From] that which our Rabbis taught: If the anointed priest shall sin,¹⁸  excludes sins committed previously.¹⁹  Could not this law, however, be arrived at by logical reasoning: If a ruler who brings a sin offering for error in action alone does not bring one for sins committed previously,²⁰  how much less should a High Priest, who brings a sin offering only where error in action was accompanied by ignorance of the law, bring one for sins committed previously! But no; if this²¹  is said to apply to a ruler who indeed does not bring his sin offering after he lost his rank, could it be said to apply also to an anointed High priest who does bring his sin offering even after he relinquished office?²²  Since he brings his sin offering even after relinquishing office it might have been assumed that he brings also for sins committed previously,¹⁹  hence Scripture stated, 'The anointed priest shall sin'¹⁸  [which teaches that] if he sinned while he was already anointed High Priest he brings [the prescribed sin offering], if, however, when he was still one of the common people he does not bring it.

A similar discussion also took place²³  in respect of a ruler: When in ruler sinneth²⁴  excludes sins he committed previously.¹⁹  Could not this law, however, be arrived at by logical reasoning: If an anointed High Priest who brings his sin offering even [if he sinned] after he relinquished office does not, nevertheless, bring one for sins he committed previously,¹⁹  how much less should a ruler who does not bring his sin offering²⁵  [if he sinned] after he lost his rank, bring one for sins he committed previously. The anointed High Priest [it may, however, be retorted] may well be exempt from bringing²⁶  because he is also exempt [where his sin consisted] of error in action alone, could it be said, however, [that the same law should apply] to a ruler who does bring one [where his sin consisted] of error in action a lone? Now, since he brings²⁷  for error in action alone it might be assumed that he brings also for sins he committed previously,²⁸  hence Scripture stated, 'When a ruler sinneth,'²⁹  only if he sinned when he was already ruler,³⁰  but not if he sinned while he was still a layman.

Our Rabbis taught: When³¹  a ruler sinneth³²  might have been taken to imply a decree, hence Scripture stated, If the anointed priest shall sin;³³  as there the meaning is 'if and when³⁴  he sinneth' so here also the meaning is 'if and when he sinneth'.

The Master said, '[It] might have been taken to imply a decree'; but could one possibly imagine such a thing!³⁵  — Yes, it may be answered, for we find that it is written in the Scripture, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession,³⁶  which is an announcement to them that they will be visited by plagues; these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: [This text] excludes³⁷  plagues due to supernatural causes.³⁸  Now, as³⁹  R. Judah declared [that the Scriptural text is] an announcement, so here also it might have been assumed that the text implies a decree, hence 'if' had to be written.⁴⁰

According to R. Simeon, however, do not plagues that are due to supernatural causes impart Levitical uncleanness? Surely it was taught, When a man shall have,⁴¹  implies 'from the time of the promulgation onwards'.⁴²  May not this, however, be arrived at by logical deduction? Uncleanness [is mentioned in connection] with one who has an issue,⁴³  and uncleanness [is mentioned in respect] of plagues; as in the case of a man who has an issue, [the laws of uncleanness are applicable only] from the time of their promulgation onwards,⁴⁴  so in the case of plagues [their laws of uncleanness are applicable only] from the time of their promulgation onwards! No; if [this restriction] is applicable to a man who has an issue, because he does not become unclean where it was due to accident, could it also be said to apply to plagues which do impart uncleanness even where they were due to supernatural causes.⁴⁵  Hence Scripture stated, 'When a man shall have'⁴⁶  which implies, 'from the time of the promulgation onwards'!⁴⁷  — Raba replied: The exclusion⁴⁸  refers to plagues that are due to ghosts,⁴⁹  R. Papa replied: The exclusion refers to plagues that are due to witchcraft.⁴⁹

Our Rabbis taught: When in ruler sinneth⁵⁰  excludes a sick man. Should he, because he is, sick, be removed from his rank? — R. Abdimi b. Hama replied: The exclusion refers to a ruler who became leprous; as it is said, And the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in the house of freedom,'⁵¹  and Jotham the king's son wins over the household.⁵²

Since it is stated, In the house of freedom⁵¹  it must be inferred that until then he was a servant;⁵³  as is illustrated in the case⁵⁴  of R. Gamaliel⁵⁵  and R. Joshua.⁵⁶  They once traveled on board a ship. R. Gamaliel had with him some bread only, while R. Joshua had with him bread and flour. When R. Gamaliel's bread was consumed he depended on R. Joshua's flour. 'Did you know', the former asked him, 'that we should be so much delayed that you brought flour with you?' The latter answered him, 'A certain star rises once in seventy years and leads the sailors⁵⁷  astray, and I suspected it might rise and lead us astray.' 'You possess so much knowledge', the former said to him, 'and yet must travel on board a ship!'⁵⁸  The other replied, 'Rather than be surprised at me, marvel at two disciples you have on land, R. Eleazar Hisma and R. Johanan b. Gudgada,⁵⁹  who are able to calculate how many drops there are in the sea, and yet have neither bread to eat nor raiment to put on. He decided to appoint them as supervisors,⁶⁰  and when he landed⁶¹  he sent for them, but they did not come.⁶²  He sent for them a second time and when they came he said to them, 'Do you imagine that I offer you rulership?

1. Lit., 'that it taught'.
2. [Text of cur. edd. is difficult. Read with MR.M. 'It was necessary to state it on account of a ruler. As I might think since where he had passed from his greatness and then sinned he is treated as a layman, he should be also considered so even where he first sinned and then passed from his greatness, hence we are told that this is not so.']
3. Lev. IV, 3.
4. A High Priest.
5. Lit., 'for he could, is it not (a matter for) reasoning'.
6. I.e., a he-goat which is the prescribed sin offering for a ruler.
7. Lev. IV, 3.
8. Where he sinned after he lost his rank.
9. A he-goat. V. supra note 2.
10. Kal wa-homer. V. Glos.
11. A bullock, as if he were still High Priest.
12. V. supra note 2.
13. Lev. IV, 22.
14. Does he bring the sin offering of a he-goat.
15. A High Priest and a ruler.
16. In respect of their sin offerings.
17. Lev. IV, 22.
18. Ibid. 3.
19. Prior to his appointment.
20. V. infra.
21. That no sin offering is to be brought for sins committed prior to appointment.
22. As stated in the previous Mishnah.
23. Lit., 'and it was also taught'.
24. Lev. IV, 22.
25. A he-goat which is the ruler's prescribed sin offering.
26. A bullock, the sin offering prescribed for a High Priest.
27. A he-goat which is the ruler's prescribed sin offering.
28. Prior to his appointment.
29. Emphasis on 'ruler'.
30. Only then does he bring the sin offering prescribed for a ruler.
31. [H] may be rendered 'when' (i.e., 'if') as well as 'that', (i.e., 'shall').
32. Lev. IV, 22.
33. Ibid. v. 3.
34. The expression 'if', (im, [H]) having been used.
35. Lit., 'a decree? Whence does it come!'
36. Lev. XIV, 34.
37. From Levitical uncleanness.
38. [H] So Rashi. The argument that follows, however, does not run smoothly: Tosaf. Asheri in the name of the Ramah renders, 'due to accident,' it being assumed at present that the reference is to bodily plagues as those affecting houses were held to be possible only as a result of a providential infliction.]
39. Lit., 'not'.
40. The expression 'if' ([H]).
41. Lev. XIII, 2.
42. But any plagues that broke out prior to the promulgation of the law were not subject to the laws of uncleanness
43. V. Lev. XV, 2ff.
44. Since the future (imperfect) [H] is used in Lev. XV, 2. V. supra p. 69, n. 15.
45. [Or 'to accident'.]
46. Lev. XIII, 2.
47. How, then, could it be said that, according to R. Simeon, plagues that are due to supernatural causes (or to accidents) are not subject to the laws of uncleanness?
48. Deduced by R. Simeon.
49. Such are not unclean: while in the Baraitha cited the reference is to plagues that are due to external violence such as a fall or scald which do impart uncleanness. [According to Tosaf. Asheri: Such are not unclean, while in the Baraitha cited the reference is to plagues of houses inflicted providentially, and as such impart uncleanness, it being now maintained that there is an additional agency apart from a special act of Providence for the infliction.]
50. Lev. IV, 22.
51. [H] (E.V. 'in a house set apart'), indicating that he became freed of all royal prerogatives and privileges and considered an ordinary individual.
52. II Kings XV, 5.
53. Of his people, i.e., a ruler.
54. Lit., 'that'.
55. [R. Gamaliel II on his journey to Rome in the year 95.]
56. Which proves that a person in authority is described as 'servant'.
57. Who steer their course by the stars. [The star with which R. Joshua was acquainted has been identified as Halley's comet whose periodic time is about 75 years. Brodetsky, Z. disputes this view, since one of the periodic returns of Halley's comet was in the year 66, whereas the journey of R. Gamaliel to Rome was in the year 95. It remains nevertheless remarkable that the periodic time of at least one comet was known to R. Joshua in the second century, about 1500 years before this phenomenon became known even to the most civilized nations. V. Feldman, W.M. Rabbinical Mathematics, pp. 11 and 216.]
58. To earn a livelihood.
59. [R. Johanan b. Gudgada belonged to a much earlier generation, and the reference must be in R. Johanan b. Nuri, v. Bacher AT., I, 374.]
60. Thus enabling them to earn a living.
61. Lit., 'went up', i.e., on land.
62. Being too modest to accept a position of honor.

Our Rabbis taught: When a ruler sinneth;²  R. Johanan b. Zakkai said: Happy³  is the generation whose ruler brings a sacrifice for a sin he has committed unwillingly. If its ruler brings a sacrifice, is there any need to say what one of the common people would do; and if he brings a sacrifice for a sin he has committed unwillingly, is there any need to say what he would do in case of a sin committed wilfully?

Raba son of Rabbah demurred: Now, then, it is written, And he shall make restitution for that which⁴  he hath done amiss in the holy thing,⁵  and concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat it is written, Which⁴  he hath sinned, and wherewith⁶  she hath made [Israel] to sin,⁷  could the meaning there⁸  also be, 'happy is that generation'? — Here the case is different, because Scripture deliberately changed the expression.⁹

R. Nahman b. Hisda made the following exposition: What is meant by the Scriptural text: There is a vanity which is done upon the earth: [That⁴  there are righteous men, unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the wicked; again there are wicked men to whom it hanppeneth] etc?¹⁰  Happy¹¹  are the righteous men unto whom it happeneth in this world according to the work of the wicked in the world to come;¹²  woe¹³  to the wicked men to whom it happeneth in this world according to the work of the righteous in the world to come.¹⁴  Said Raba: Would the righteous, then, if they enjoyed both worlds find it so distasteful? — But, said Raba, happy¹¹  are the righteous men unto whom it happeneth in this world according to the work of the wicked in this world;¹⁴  woe¹³  to the wicked men unto whom it happeneth in this world according to the work of the righteous in this world.¹²

R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua once came before Raba. 'Have you', he asked them, 'mastered¹⁵  this or that tractate?' 'Yes', they replied. 'Are you', he asked, 'a little better off?'¹⁶  'Yes', they replied, 'for we have bought some¹⁷  land.' He, thereupon, exclaimed:¹⁸  Happy are the righteous unto whom it happeneth in this world according to the work of the wicked in this world.

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: What is meant by the Scriptural text, For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just do walk in them; but transgressors do stumble therein?¹⁹  This may be applied²⁰  to two men both of whom roasted their paschal lambs, and one of them ate his with the intention of performing the commandment, while the other ate his merely to enjoy a substantial meal.²¹  To him who ate with the intention of performing the commandment [applies], The just do walk in them,²²  while to him who ate merely to enjoy a substantial meal [applies], But transgressors do stumble therein.²²

Said Resh Lakish to him: Do you call him 'wicked'! Granted he has not performed the commandment to perfection, has he not, however, eaten of the paschal lamb? But it²²  may be applied²³  to two men, one of whom had his wife and his sister with him at home and the other also had his wife and sister with him at home. One happened to come in contact with his wife while the other happened to come in contact with his sister. To him who happened to come in contact with his wife [applies] The just do walk in them,²²  while to him who happened to come in contact with his sister [applies], But transgressors do stumble therein.²²

What a comparison! We spoke of one way;²⁴  but here, is it not a case of two ways?²⁵  But it²²  may be applied²³  to Lot and his two daughters. To them, whose intention was the performance of a commandment [applies], The just do walk in them,²²  but to him, since his intention was to commit a sin [applies], But transgressors do stumble therein.²²  Is it not possible that he also intended to perform a commandment? R. Johanan replied: This entire verse shows that his intention was transgression: And Lot lifted up²⁶  [is analogous to], His Master's wife lifted up her eyes;²⁷  His eyes²⁶  [is analogous to] Samson said. … 'Get her for me, for she is pleasing in my eyes;'²⁸  And beheld²⁶  [is analogous to], Shechem the son of Hamor beheld her;²⁹  All the plain³⁰  of the Jordan²⁶  [is analogous to], For on account of a harlot in man is brought to a loaf³⁰  of bread;³¹  That it was well watered²⁶  [is analogous to], I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink.³²

But was he³³  not a victim of circumstances?³⁴  — It was taught in the name of R. Jose son of R. Honi: Why is there a point on the waw of u-be-kumah³⁵  mentioned in connection with the elder daughter? To indicate that though he did not know when she lay down³⁶  he well knew when she arose.³⁶  What, however, could he do?³⁷  Surely what was done could not be undone?³⁸  — Matters might have been different: He should not have drunk again on the following evening.

Rabbah made the following exposition: What is meant by the Biblical text, A brother transgressed against a strong city, and their contentions are like the bars of a castle?³⁹  — A brother transgressed against a strong city refers to Lot who separated himself from Abraham;⁴⁰  and their contentions are like the bars of the castle, because he caused contentions between Israel and Ammon, as it is said, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord.⁴¹

Raba (others say R. Isaac) made the following exposition: What is the meaning of the Biblical text, He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire, and snarleth against all sound wisdom?⁴²  — He that separateth himself seeketh his own desire, refers to Lot who separated himself from Abraham: And snarleth⁴³  against all sound wisdom, for his shame was exposed⁴⁴  in the Synagogues and in the houses of study, as we learnt: An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden [to enter into the assembly] for ever.

'Ulla said: Tamar⁴⁵  committed adultery and Zimri⁴⁶  also committed adultery. Tamar committed adultery and kings and prophets descended from her;⁴⁷  Zimri committed adultery and through him many ten thousands of Israel fell.⁴⁸

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: A transgression with good intent is

[Reverting to] the above text,⁵⁷  'Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Let a man always engage in Torah and the performance of commandments even though his motive be ulterior, because ulterior motive will ultimately lead to disinterested [study and performance;]'⁵⁸  for as a reward for the forty-two sacrifices which the wicked Balak offered⁵⁹  he gained the privilege of having Ruth descended from him; for R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: Ruth was the daughter of the son of Eglon who was the son of the son of Balak the King of Moab.

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Whence is it deduced that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deprive one even of the reward for an elegant expression? From here: Whereas in the case of the elder daughter,⁶⁰  who called her son Moab,⁶¹  the All Merciful said to Moses, Be not at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle,⁶²  'battle'

1. I Kings XII, 7, addressed by the old counsel lots to Rehoboam who was at that time King of Judah and Israel.
2. Lev. IV, 22.
3. When, [H], is rendered 'happy' like [H].
4. [H].
5. Lev. V, 16.
6. [H]
7. I Kings XIV. 16.
8. Lit., 'here': the incidents referred to in the texts cited.
9. While in the case of the High Priest (Lev. IV, 3) and the people (ibid. v. 13) the expression [H] (if) has been used, in that of the ruler the expression is [H] (v. supra p. 71, n. 9).
10. Eccl. VIII, 14.
11. Cf. p. 71, n. 9.
12. They suffer.
13. [H] read as [H] (woe that there is).
14. They prosper.
15. Lit., 'established'.
16. Lit., 'richer'.
17. Lit., 'a small (piece)'.
18. Lit., 'called about them'.
19. Hos. XIV, 10.
20. Lit., 'compared'.
21. [Or, a gluttonous meal, Tosaf. Asheri.]
22. Hos. XIV, 10.
23. Lit., compared'.
24. In which the righteous walk and the transgressors stumble.
25. One permitted (wife); and one forbidden (sister).
26. Gen. XIII, 10.
27. Ibid. XXXIX, 7. With immoral intent.
28. Jud. XIV, 3. Unholy marriage with a heathen.
29. Gen. XXXIV, 2. Adultery.
30. [H].
31. Prov. VI, 26.
32. Hos, II, 7.
33. Lot.
34. Having been under the influence of drink administered by his daughters (v Gen. XIX, 32ff).
35. [H], Gen. XIX. 33.
36. Ibid.
37. When she arose.
38. Lit., 'that which was, was'.
39. Prov. XVIII, 19.
40. V. Gen. XIII, 11. 'Strong' is a reference to Abraham (cf. Isa. LI, 1-2).
41. Deut. XXIII, 4.
42. Prov. XVIII, 1.
43. [H].
44. [H] (rt. [H] resembles [H]).
45. V. Gen. XXXVIII, 13ff.
46. V. Num. XXV, 6ff and 14.
47. Her motive was not gratification but the propagation of her tribe.
48. This was a case of common adultery.
49. Though she committed a sin (v. infra), her intention was to weaken and exhaust the wicked.
50. Jud. V, 24.
51. That a meaningless performance of a commandment is worse than a well-meant transgression and must, consequently, be discouraged.
52. Lit., 'not for its sake'.
53. Which shows that even meaningless performance of a commandment is to be encouraged.
54. I.e., not more, but a, meritorious.
55. Sisera.
56. Jud. V, 27. Each of the expressions, he sunk ([H]), and he fell ([H]) occurs three times, and he lay ([H]), occurs once.
57. So in Naz. 23b.
58. [This is based on the sound psychologic principle that 'personal experience with the good will induce recognition of its ideal value and teach that it is to be esteemed and sought for its own sake.' Lazarus, M. The Ethics of Judaism, I, p. 173.]
59. Seven bullocks and seven rams on each of three altars, V. Num, XXIII, 1f., 14, 29ff.
60. Of Lot.
61. Meaning 'from the father', thus publicly announcing her indecent act.
62. Deut. II, 9.