Previous Folio / Horayoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth
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.
Horayoth 9bAre not, then, these two statements contradictory! — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: There is really no contradiction, one statement referring1 to the poor2 and the other1 to the poorest;3 and R. Simeon is of the same opinion as R. Akiba in respect of the one, and disagrees with him in respect of the other. He is of the same opinion as R. Akiba that in respect of the poorest offering the High Priest is exempt,4 and disagrees with hills in respect of the poor.5
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.
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
- To Next Folio -