Horayot 10a — the Talmud in English

and afterward sinned,

he

brings a bull

as though he were still anointed.

If so, the following difficulty arises: Is it so that when he

sinned

while he was anointed

and afterward passed from his anointed status,

does it

need to be said

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

And we answer: In truth, it was not necessary to inform us of the law of an anointed priest who sinned and afterward passed from his anointed status, that he brings a bull. For this law can be known by a kal va-chomer from the fact that he brings a bull for a sin that he committed even after he passed from his anointed status.

Rather,

because it teaches concerning a prince,

that if he sinned and afterward passed from his princedom, he brings an offering like a prince.

And concerning a prince there is a novelty in this, for there is a distinction between whether he sinned before they removed him from his princedom and whether he sinned beforehand,

for when he passed from his princedom and afterward sinned, he brings like a common person.

Therefore, it was necessary to inform us concerning him that if he sinned and afterward passed from his princedom, his law is still that of a prince.

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,”

it also teaches concerning an anointed priest

his law when he

sinned and afterward passed from office,

that he

brings a bull,

although there is no novelty in this concerning an anointed priest.

And the Gemara explains the law stated in the Mishna:

From where are these words

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

For the Sages taught:

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

“And he shall bring for his sin.”

Since it did not merely say, “And he shall bring a bull,” as Scripture said concerning the sin offering of the community , but Scripture added and said, “for his sin which he sinned,”

the verse teaches

the

bringing

by the anointed priest of his

sin offering,

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

after he passed

from his priesthood.

One might have thought

that, were it not for the derivation from this verse, his law after he passed from office would not be like that of an anointed priest.

For we would say:

Is it not a matter of logic

that his law should be like that of a common person?

And as for a prince, who brings

his special offering

for an unwitting act

alone, even without an erroneous instruction, nevertheless

he does not

bring his sin offering

that is special to him as a prince if he sinned

after he passed from office,

but brings like a common person.

An anointed priest, who does not bring

a bull

for an unwitting act

alone,

but

only

for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act—how much more so

that if he sinned after he passed from office, he does not bring a bull, but only a female goat, like a common person .

The verse therefore says: “And he shall bring for his sin,” teaching that he brings

a bull

for his sin,

even if he sinned

after he passed from office!

And perhaps you will say:

Let us also bring a prince,

the offering of a prince when he sinned after he passed from office,

by a kal va-chomer

from an anointed priest:

And if an anointed priest, who does not bring

a bull

for an unwitting act

alone, but together with an erroneous matter, nevertheless he

brings his sin offering

also for a sin that he sinned

after he passed from office.

A prince, who brings a sin offering

of a prince

for an unwitting act

alone,

is it not logical that he brings his sin offering

as a prince also for a sin that he sinned

after he passed from office!

Therefore,

the verse says

concerning the he-goat of a prince:

“When a prince sins.”

And we expound: the one who sins

when he is a prince, yes,

only then does he bring a prince’s offering; but a prince who sins after he passed from his princedom,

when he is a common person, no!

Mishna:

If

an anointed priest or

a prince sinned before they were appointed, and afterward they were appointed, these are like common persons,

and they bring a female goat or a female sheep—these are the words of the Sages .

Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them

about their sin

before they were appointed,

they are

obligated

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 prince to bring an offering applies only when the sin and the knowledge of the sin were at a time when the same obligation applied.

But if he sinned when he was a common person, when his obligation was a female sheep, whereas the knowledge became known to him when he was serving as an anointed priest, when his obligation was a he-goat; or if he sinned during his priesthood and it became known to him when he had passed from the priesthood, he is entirely exempt, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara .

Which is a nasi

who is liable for a goat-offering? —

This is a king!

As it is stated

concerning him: “And he commits one

of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God.”

And we expound: “The Lord his God” —

that there is no one above him

any ruler;

rather, the Lord his God

alone is the one who rules over him.

Gemara:

And we inquire:

From where are these words

that if they sinned before they were appointed and afterward were appointed, they do not bring a bull or a goat according to their present status [but rather an individual offering, as they became liable for when they were commoners]?

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

The verse teaches that he becomes liable for a bull only if he sinned when he was an anointed priest.

Except for

earlier

sins,

for which he does not bring a bull, but rather a female sheep or female goat, as he became liable 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 it not a logical inference: Just as a nasi, who brings

a goat

for an unwitting act

alone, since the definitions of his inadvertence did not change during his nasi-ship from the definitions of the inadvertence of a commoner, but he becomes liable for an inadvertence in an act alone, and not for a ruling, and nevertheless

does not bring for earlier sins [and below they derive this from the verse “when a nasi sins” — when he sins while he is a nasi].

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

An anointed priest,

whose definitions of inadvertence changed, and now his law is

that he brings only for forgetting a matter together with an unwitting act—is it not logical that he should not bring

the anointed priest’s bull

for earlier sins!

And the beraita answers:

No.

This is not a kal va-chomer. For

if you say regarding a nasi

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

since he does not bring his sin-offering

of a nasi for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his nasi-ship.

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

of an anointed priest’s bull even for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his nasi-ship?

And therefore there was room to err and say that

since he brings his sin-offering

for a sin that he committed

after he passed

from his priesthood,

he should also bring

while he is anointed

for

sins

earlier

than his priesthood.

Therefore,

the verse states, “The anointed priest sins” —

he sinned when he was anointed,

or after he was anointed and passed from his priesthood,

he brings

a bull; but if he sinned before his priesthood,

when he was a commoner, he does not bring!

And it is also taught regarding a nasi in this manner: “When a nasi sins” —

except for earlier sins!

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

Is it not a logical inference: Just as an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering

according to the laws of an anointed priest, whose sin-offering is a bull, even for a sin that he committed while he was a commoner

after he passed

from his priesthood, and nevertheless

does not bring for

his sins

earlier

than his priesthood,

a nasi, who does not bring his sin-offering

for a sin that he committed

after he passed, is it not logical that he should not bring for

sins

earlier,

which he committed while he was a commoner? For we do not find that he brings a sin-offering as a nasi after he has passed from office and is a commoner.

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

what can be said concerning an anointed priest, that he does not bring

his offering

for an unwitting act

alone, but only together with forgetting a matter, and therefore he does not bring a bull during his anointed status for a sin that he committed when he was a commoner, since his manner of liability has now changed.

Can you say the same regarding a nasi, who brings for an unwitting act

alone, and therefore it is possible to say

since he brings for an unwitting act,

it follows that the manner of his liability is equal to the liability of a commoner, and if so,

he should bring

the nasi’s goat even

for earlier sins.

Therefore

the verse states, “When a nasi sins”

he brings the nasi’s offering only for a sin

that he committed while he is a nasi, and not for one that he committed while he was still a commoner.

The Sages taught: “When a nasi sins.”

One might have said that it is a decree

that the Holy One, blessed is He, decreed that every nasi will sin [and below it will be explained what the hava amina was for saying this]?

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

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

Rather,

just as there,

regarding the anointed priest, the intention is not a decree, for “if” is explicitly stated concerning him, and the intention of the verse is that this is not inevitable, but that he should bring an offering

when he sins.

So too here,

regarding the nasi, there is no decree upon him that he will sin; rather, the intention of the verse is that he should bring an offering

when he sins.

The master said: One might have said it is a decree

that a nasi will sin.

And we inquire:

A decree

that he will sin—

from where would you say this?

Have we found such a decree!?

And we answer:

They say —

Yes!

There is a source that the verse announces that an evil matter is destined to occur.

For it is written [Leviticus 14]

Leviticus 14]:

“And I shall place a plague of leprosy in the house of the land of your inheritance.”

It is an announcement to them that afflictions will come upon them, the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says,

the intention of the verse is to say something else: “And I shall place a plague of leprosy”—that the affliction should come on its own,

excluding afflictions caused by coercion,

for if the afflictions came through a blowing of a demon, they do not render impure!

Is it not so

that

Rabbi Judah said

that the verse announces even

an announcement

of evil, as it announced regarding afflictions?

If so,

here too,

regarding the goat of a nasi,

say that it is a decree

that the nasi will sin.

Therefore it is written

regarding the anointed priest, “

If

the anointed priest sins,” whose meaning is “when he sins.” It was written this way regarding the anointed priest in order to learn from it concerning the nasi that it is not a decree that he will sin, but that the intention of the verse is “when he sins.”

And the Gemara asks:

And according to Rabbi Shimon,

who said that the verse came to exclude afflictions caused by coercion, are

afflictions caused by coercion not impure!?

But it was taught,

for we learned in a beraita concerning the verse

“When a person will have

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

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

from the proclamation onward

render him impure, but afflictions that were on a person before the portion of afflictions was stated at Sinai do not render him impure!

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 it not a logical inference,

for

one who is impure through gonorrhea and one who is impure through afflictions

can be learned through what is found:

Just as one with a discharge

does not become impure except

from the proclamation onward,

as it is written, “When there will be one with a discharge,” whose meaning is that his impurity takes effect only if he will have a discharge in the future, from the proclamation onward,

so too afflictions

do not render impure unless they occurred

from the proclamation onward.

If so, why is a special verse needed to teach us that afflictions render impure only if they came upon a person after the proclamation!? And the beraita answers:

No.

Afflictions cannot be compared to one with a discharge. For

if you say regarding one with a discharge,

it is logical that he renders impure only from the proclamation onward, since we find that the verse was lenient with him,

for he does not

render impure

through a discharge that occurred

through coercion [

such as through illness or walking].

Can you say the same regarding afflictions, which render impure

even if they occurred

through coercion?

And therefore

the verse states

also regarding afflictions

“When a person will have”

the verse teaches that a person becomes impure through afflictions only if they came upon him

from the proclamation onward!

And it is proven from this beraita that afflictions caused by coercion do render impure, contrary to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion?

And the Gemara brings two explanations by amoraim to resolve the difficulty:

Rava said:

It is not difficult. For everything that Rabbi Shimon excluded by “afflictions caused by coercion,” his intention was

excluding afflictions caused by spirits,

which come through a blowing of a demon and not through a person; whereas what the tanna said in the beraita, that afflictions caused by coercion render impure, refers to afflictions that occurred as a result of coercion caused by a person, namely through 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 resulting from accidents,” means

excluding lesions caused by sorcery

that are made through sorcery. But concerning the other lesions resulting from accidents, which are discussed in the beraita, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that they render impure.

The Sages taught: “When a ruler sins”—

excluding a sick person!

And we raise an objection to this: But

because he became sick, has he been removed from his rulership?

And we answer:

Rav Avdimi bar Hama said:

The tanna’s intention is to say:

excluding a ruler who became leprous. 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!”

And the verse informs us through the words “in the house of freedom” that from the time he became leprous he became free from the kingship and his status became that of an ordinary person; therefore they learn from “when a ruler” that he does not bring a goat.

Since it says

the verse

“in the house of freedom,” it follows

that you learn this:

until now,

before he became leprous,

he was a slave,

because when he was king, authority was placed upon him as a yoke, since the yoke of the public was placed upon him; only now, when he ceased to reign, did he become free.

As with Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, who were traveling on a ship. With

Rabban Gamliel

there was

only

bread

[bread],

and with Rabbi Yehoshua there was bread and fine flour,

for he had in his possession fine flour as well, in addition to the bread.

It was finished,

it was exhausted,

Rabban Gamliel’s bread,

and from then onward

he relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s fine flour,

for he sustained himself with this fine 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 have such a lengthy delay,

that we would be delayed so long on the way, and for that reason

you brought,

that you brought as provisions for the journey, besides the bread, also

fine 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 it is seen in the south, and because of the change of its place, it

misleads the sailors.

The practice of sailors is that when they sail out to sea, the captain looks at the stars, and according to the position of the stars in the firmament he knows where north is and where south is, and according to this he directs the ship. Therefore, when that star rises [once in seventy years] and changes its place from north to south or vice versa, it misleads the sailors, and they direct the ship by mistake in the opposite direction.

And I said, perhaps it will rise

this star at the time of 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 go up on a ship

to seek your livelihood?

He said to him

Rabbi Yehoshua

“Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students whom you have on dry land,”

and they are

Rabbi Elazar Hisma and Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgada,

for they 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 gave

his

mind to appointing them at the head,

so that their livelihood would come from that authority.

When he went up

to dry land,

he sent to them

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

but they did not come. He sent again

to them,

and they came 16 .

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

and that is why you did not come at first, because you did not desire authority? But you are mistaken, for I am not giving you authority.