Horayot 10a (י.) — the Talmud in English

and then sinned,

he

brings a bull

as though he were still anointed.

If so, the following difficulty arises: When he

sinned

while he was anointed

and then passed from his anointed status,

is it

necessary to state

that he brings a bull? Is it not a kal va-chomer that he brings a bull?

And we answer: In fact, it was not necessary to teach the law of an anointed priest who sinned and then passed from his anointed status—that he brings a bull. We know this law by a kal va-chomer from the fact that he brings a bull for a sin he committed even after passing from his anointed status.

Rather,

because it was taught with regard to the nasi,

that if he sinned and then was removed from his position of authority, he brings the offering of a nasi.

This contains a novelty with regard to a nasi, because there is a distinction between one who sinned before he was removed from his position of authority and one who sinned afterward:

For when he was removed from his position of authority and then sinned, he brings the offering of an ordinary person.

Therefore, it was necessary to teach that if he sinned and then was removed from his position of authority, his law remains that of a nasi.

Accordingly, since the tanna taught with regard to the nasi the law of “he was removed from his position of authority and then sinned,”

therefore

as in: “therefore”—for this reason]

he also taught with regard to the anointed priest

the law of one who

sinned and then passed from office,

that he

brings a bull,

although this does not constitute a novelty in the case of an anointed priest.

The Gemara explains the law stated in the Mishna:

From where are these matters

—that an anointed priest who passed from office and then sinned is obligated to bring a bull as though he were still anointed—derived?

As the Sages taught:

Regarding the verse stated concerning the bull of an anointed priest [Leviticus 4]: “

And he shall offer for his sin.”

Since it does not merely state, “And he shall offer a bull,” as the verse states concerning the communal sin-offering , but the verse added and said, “for his sin that he committed,”

the verse teaches

that

he brings

the anointed priest

his sin-offering,

the bull of an anointed priest, in every case, even for a sin he committed

after passing

from his priestly office.

One might have thought

that, without the derivation from this verse, his law after passing from office would not be that of an anointed priest.

For we would have said:

Is it not logically derived

that his law should be that of an ordinary person?

And just as a nasi, who brings

his special offering

for an inadvertent act

alone, even without an inadvertent ruling, nevertheless

does not

bring his special sin-offering

as a nasi if he sinned

after passing from office,

but brings the offering of an ordinary person—

an anointed priest, who does not bring

a bull

for an inadvertent act

alone,

but

only

for an unintentional matter together with an inadvertent act—would it not all the more follow

that if he sinned after passing from office, he would not bring a bull, but only a female goat, like an ordinary person?

The verse states: “And he shall offer for his sin,” teaching that he brings

a bull

for his sin,

even if he sinned

after passing from office!

And perhaps you should say:

Let us also bring a nasi,

the offering of a nasi when he sinned after passing from office,

by a kal va-chomer

from an anointed priest:

And just as an anointed priest, who does not bring

a bull

for an inadvertent act

alone, but only together with an unintentional matter, nevertheless

brings his sin-offering

even for a sin that he committed

after passing from office,

a nasi, who brings a sin-offering

of a nasi

for an inadvertent act

alone—

is it not logically derived that he brings his sin-offering

as a nasi even for a sin that he committed

after passing from office!

Therefore,

the verse states

with regard to the goat of a nasi:

“When the nasi sins.”

And we expound: One who sins

when he is a nasi—yes,

only then does he bring the offering of a nasi; but a nasi who sins after passing from his position of authority,

when he is an ordinary person—no!

Mishna:

If

an anointed priest or

a nasi sinned before they were appointed and were then appointed, they have the status of ordinary persons,

and they bring a female goat or a female sheep—this is the statement of the Sages.

Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them

of their sin

before they were appointed,

they

are liable

to bring an individual offering even after they were appointed. But if it became known to them only

after they were appointed,

they

are entirely exempt

from an offering.

For according to Rabbi Shimon, the obligation of an anointed priest or a nasi to bring an offering applies only when the sin and awareness of the sin occurred while the person was subject to the same obligation.

But if he sinned when he was an ordinary person, when his obligation was to bring a female sheep, whereas his awareness came when he was serving as an anointed priest, when his obligation was to bring a goat; or if he sinned while serving as an anointed priest and became aware of it after passing from the priesthood, he is entirely exempt, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara .

Which ruler

who is obligated to bring a goat-offering—

this is a king!

As it is stated

concerning him: “and he commits one

of all the commandments of the Lord his God.”

And we interpret: “the Lord his God”

— that there is no one above him

any ruler;

rather, only the Lord his God

is the one who rules over him.

Gemara:

And we raise the question:

from where are these matters

that if they sinned before they were appointed and were subsequently appointed, they do not bring a bull or goat as required by their present status, [but rather an individual offering, as they became obligated to bring when they were ordinary people]]?

As the Sages taught: “If the anointed priest sins.”

The verse teaches that he becomes obligated to bring a bull only if he sinned when he was anointed.

This excludes

sins

that preceded his anointment,

for which he does not bring a bull, but rather a female sheep or female goat, as he became obligated at the time of the sin.

And the beraita asks: Why is a verse needed to teach that the anointed priest does not bring a bull for what he sinned before he was appointed?

Is this not a kal va-chomer? Just as a ruler, who brings

a goat

for an unintentional act

alone—since the parameters of his unintentional transgression in his position as ruler did not change from those of an ordinary person’s unintentional transgression, but he becomes liable for an unintentional act alone, and not for a ruling—and nevertheless

he does not bring an offering for earlier sins [

and below they derive this from the verse “when a ruler sins”—when he sins while he is a ruler].

In the case of an anointed priest,

whose parameters of unintentional transgression have changed, and whose law now is

that he brings an offering only for unawareness of the matter together with an unintentional act—is it not a logical conclusion that he should not bring

the bull of an anointed priest

for earlier sins!

And the beraita answers:

No.

This is not a kal va-chomer. For

if you say concerning a ruler

that he does not bring an offering for earlier sins, this is no proof concerning an anointed priest, since it can be rejected and said that specifically a ruler does not bring an offering for earlier sins,

because he does not bring his sin-offering

the ruler’s offering for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his position as ruler.

Can you say the same concerning an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering

the offering of an anointed priest, even for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his position of office.

Therefore, there would be room for error and one might say that

since he brings his sin-offering

for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his priesthood,

he should likewise bring

while he is anointed

for

sins

that preceded

his priesthood.

Therefore,

the verse states: “the anointed priest sins”—

if he sinned when he was anointed,

or after he had been anointed and then passed from his priesthood,

he brings

a bull, but if he sinned before his priesthood,

when he was an ordinary person, he does not bring one!

And a similar teaching was taught with regard to a ruler: “When a ruler sins”—

this excludes earlier sins!

And the beraita asks: Why is a verse needed to teach that the ruler does not bring his special offering for what he sinned before he was appointed?

Is this not a kal va-chomer? Just as an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering

according to the laws of an anointed priest—his sin-offering being a bull—even for a sin that he committed when he was an ordinary person

after he passed

from his priesthood, and nevertheless

he does not bring for

his sins

that preceded

his priesthood.

With regard to a ruler, who does not bring his sin-offering

for a sin that he committed

after he passed from office, is it not a logical conclusion that he should not bring for

sins

that preceded

his office, which he committed while he was an ordinary person? For we never find that he brings a sin-offering as a ruler after he has passed from office and is an ordinary person.

And the beraita answers: This kal va-chomer can be rejected. For

what is true of an anointed priest is that he does not bring his offering

for an unintentional act

alone, but only together with unawareness of the matter. Therefore, while anointed he does not bring a bull for a sin he committed when he was an ordinary person, since the manner of his liability has now changed.

Can you say the same concerning a ruler, who brings an offering for an unintentional act

alone, and therefore it is possible to say

since he brings an offering for an unintentional act,

it follows that the manner of his liability is the same as that of an ordinary person, and therefore

the ruler should bring

a goat even

for earlier sins.

Therefore,

the verse states: “When a ruler sins,”

he brings the ruler’s offering only for a sin

that he committed when he was a ruler, and not for one that he committed while he was still an ordinary person.

The Sages taught: “When a ruler sins.”

Could it be a decree

that the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed that every ruler would sin [and below it will be explained what the initial possibility was for saying this]?

The verse states: “If the anointed priest sins.”

And we learn “sins—sins,” from the anointed priest, that there is no such heavenly decree that a ruler will sin.

Rather,

just as there,

in the case of the anointed priest, the intention is not a decree, since “if” is explicitly stated concerning him, and the intent of the verse is not that this is inevitable, but that he will bring an offering

when he sins.

So too here,

in the case of the ruler, there is no decree upon him that he will sin; rather, the intent of the verse is that he will bring an offering

when he sins.

The Master said: Could it be a decree

that a ruler will sin?

And we raise the question:

A decree

that he will sin—

from where could one derive

such a statement? Have we ever found such a decree!?

And we answer:

They said—

Yes!

There is a source for the possibility that Scripture announces that an evil event will occur.

As it is written [

Leviticus 14]:

“I will place a plague of leprosy in a house in the land of your possession.”

It is an announcement to them that plagues will come upon them; this is the statement of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

the intent of the verse is to say something else: “I will place a plague of leprosy”—the affliction must come on its own,

excluding afflictions caused by circumstances beyond one’s control,

for if the afflictions came through the blowing of a demon, they do not impart impurity!

Is it not the case

that

Rabbi Judah said

that Scripture announces even

an announcement

of something bad, as it announced the afflictions?

If so,

here too

with regard to the ruler’s goat,

say that it is a decree

that the ruler will sin.

Therefore it is written

concerning the anointed priest,

“ if

the anointed priest sins,” whose meaning is “when he sins.” It is written this way with regard to the anointed priest in order to teach from it concerning the ruler that this is not a decree that he will sin; rather, the intent of the verse is “when he sins.”

And the Gemara asks:

But according to Rabbi Shimon,

who said that the verse came to exclude afflictions caused by circumstances beyond one’s control, is it really the case that

such afflictions do not impart impurity!?

But it was taught:

we learned in a beraita concerning the verse

“When a person has

a plague of leprosy on the skin of his flesh”:

“When he has”—only afflictions that came upon a person

from the time of the utterance onward

impart impurity, ,

but afflictions that were on a person before the passage of afflictions was stated at Sinai do not impart impurity!

And the beraita asks:

Is this not a logical conclusion,

for

there is impurity in the case of a zav, and impurity in the case of afflictions.

And we can derive the matter through a comparison based on a common feature:

Just as a zav

does not become impure אלא

from the time of the utterance onward,

as it is written, “when a man becomes a zav,” whose meaning is that his impurity takes effect only if he will become a zav in the future, from the time of the utterance onward,

so too, afflictions

do not impart impurity unless they occurred

from the time of the utterance onward.

And if so, why is a special verse needed to teach that afflictions do not impart impurity unless they came upon a person after the utterance!? The beraita answers:

No.

Afflictions cannot be compared to a zav. For

if you say this concerning a zav,

it is logical that he does not impart impurity except from the utterance onward, since we find that Scripture was lenient with regard to him,

as he does not

impart impurity

through a discharge that occurred

involuntarily [

for example, because of illness or walking].

Can you say the same concerning afflictions, which impart impurity

even if they occurred

involuntarily?

And is it proven from this beraita that afflictions caused by circumstances beyond one’s control do impart impurity, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

The Gemara offers two answers from amoraim to resolve the difficulty:

Rava said:

It is not difficult. Everything that Rabbi Shimon excluded as afflictions caused by circumstances beyond one’s control means

excluding afflictions caused by spirits,

which come through the blowing of a demon and not through a person. Whereas what the tanna said in the beraita—that afflictions caused by circumstances beyond one’s control impart impurity—refers to afflictions that resulted from coercion inflicted by a person, namely, from a blow or a burn.

Rav Pappa said

there is another way to distinguish between the words of Rabbi Shimon and what we learned in the beraita:

What Rabbi Shimon said, “excluding lesions caused through circumstances beyond one’s control,” means

excluding lesions caused by sorcery

which are made through sorcery. But with regard to other lesions caused through circumstances beyond one’s control, which are the subject of the beraita, Rabbi Shimon too agrees that they render impure.

The Sages taught: “When a ruler sins” —

excluding one who is ill!

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: But

because he became ill, is he thereby removed from his rulership?

And we answer:

Rav Avdimi bar Hama said:

The tanna intended to say:

excluding a ruler who became afflicted with leprosy. As it is stated

[in II Kings 15] concerning King Uzziah:

“And the Lord afflicted the king, and he was a leper until the day of his death, and he lived in the house of freedom. And Jotham the king’s son was over the house!”

The verse teaches us by saying “in the house of freedom” that from the time he became a leper, he became free of the kingship and his status became that of an ordinary person. Therefore, we learn from “When a ruler” that he does not bring a male goat.

Since

Scripture

says “in the house of freedom,” it follows

that you learn from this

that until now,

before he became a leper,

he was a slave,

because while he was king, authority lay upon him like a yoke, since the burden of the public lay upon him; only now, when he ceased to rule, did he become free.

As in the incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, who were traveling by ship. With

Rabban Gamliel

there was

only

bread

[pat],

and with Rabbi Yehoshua there were bread and flour,

he also had flour in his possession, in addition to the bread.

It was finished,

it was consumed;

Rabban Gamliel’s bread,

and from that point onward

he relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour,

for he sustained himself from the flour that remained for him.

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel to Rabbi Yehoshua:

Did you know

before we set out on the journey

that we would be delayed so long,

that we would be delayed on the way for such a long time, and that because of this

you brought

as provisions for the journey, in addition to the bread, also

flour

for our sustenance?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua to Rabban Gamliel: There is

one star

that

once in seventy years

it

rises.

Sometimes it is seen in the north and sometimes in the south, and because its position changes, it

misleads the sailors.

The practice of sailors is that when they set out to sea, the captain looks at the stars, and according to the position of the stars in the sky he knows where north is and where south is, and on that basis he steers the ship. Therefore, when that star rises [once in seventy years] and changes its position from north to south or vice versa, it misleads the sailors, and they steer the ship mistakenly in the opposite direction.

And I said: Perhaps it will rise

this star during our journey,

and mislead us;

therefore I took provisions for a longer journey.

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel:

So much

wisdom there is

in your possession, and you travel by ship

to seek your livelihood?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua

“While you are astonished at me, be astonished at two students of yours who are on dry land,”

and they are

Rabbi Elazar Hisma and Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada,

who are so wise that they

know how to calculate how many drops there are in the sea, and

nevertheless,

they have no bread to eat and no garment to wear.

When Rabban Gamliel heard this,

he resolved

in

his mind to appoint them to positions of authority,

so that their livelihood would come to them through that authority.

When he came ashore,

on dry land,

he sent for them

to call them and appoint them, seating them at the head,

but they did not come. He sent again

for them,

and they came 16 .

He said to them: “Do you imagine that I am granting you authority,

and that this is why you did not come initially, because you did not desire authority? You are mistaken, for I am not granting you authority,