Horayot 9a — the Talmud in English

For it was taught: Rabbi Yirmeya used to say: It is stated

in the section of the sacrifice of ascending and descending value, “And if

his hand does not reach it,” and it is stated, “]]

and if

his hand does not attain it,” and it]]

means:

one who comes to poverty and wealth]]

is liable to bring a sacrifice of ascending and descending value.

The prince and the anointed priest are excluded, for they do not]]

come

to poverty!

And the Gemara explains: From where do we know that the prince and the anointed priest do not come to poverty?

The prince]]

is so

because it is written, “And he performs one of all the commandments of the Lord his God.”]]

And we derive:

one over whom there is no]]

authority higher than he

except the Lord his God]],

that is, a king; and a king is always wealthy.

The anointed priest, for it is written, “And the high priest from among his brothers,”]]

and we derive:

that he is greater than his brothers in appearance, in strength, in wisdom, and in wealth]] 2 .

2.

Others say: From where is it established that if he does not have

wealth,

make him great]]

in wealth with money

from his brothers?]]

The verse states: “And the high priest from among his brothers, upon whose head he pours [the anointing oil]”]]—

make him great from his brothers!]]

Ravina asked Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: A prince who became a leper

and was removed from his princedom,

and]]

during that period in which he was removed from his position he transgressed a sin for which an ordinary person is liable to bring a sacrifice of ascending and descending value,

what

is his law?

Is it then considered as though he was

completely rejected]] from his princedom, and he is like an ordinary person and liable for a sacrifice of ascending and descending value?

from his position as prince, so that he is like an ordinary person and is obligated to bring an offering whose type varies according to his means?

Or]]

perhaps

he is exempt,]]

for he is only temporarily not serving in his position, but he still has the status of a prince and is exempt from a sacrifice of ascending and descending value?

He said to him:

From which money will the prince who became a leper bring his sacrifice? From money

of yours

[his own],

or]] from money

of

the treasury,]]

from his private stores? [That is, surely it is clear that he will bring his sacrifice from his own money. And since the reason for the exemption is his wealth, and it was not harmed by his leprosy, it is obvious that he is exempt even when he transgressed during his leprosy, since the reason for the exemption—that he does not come to poverty—also exists during his leprosy.]

It was taught: Rabbi Akiva says: The anointed priest is exempt from all of them!]]

Rabba said: What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason? The verse says

with regard to the mitzva of the high priest’s griddle-cakes, which are made from one-tenth of an ephah:

“This is the offering of Aaron and his sons,”]]

and we derive:

this]]

is the one-tenth of an ephah that

comes as an obligation for him, and no]]

other one-tenth of an ephah,

such as this one]]

in the sacrifice of ascending and descending value, where the poorest person brings one-tenth of an ephah as his sacrifice,

comes as an obligation for him.]]

And since he was excluded from the sacrifice of one-tenth of an ephah of ascending and descending value, he was excluded and exempted from all the levels stated in the sacrifice of ascending and descending value.

[But the anointed priest was not excluded from the obligation to bring a bull, and at the end of the chapter we shall clarify whether he brings a bull for them!] And we challenge this:

But say that when the Merciful One excludes him,]]

that means only

from the poverty of poverty]]

of ascending and descending value;

and what is it? One-tenth of an ephah. But]] from the sacrifice of

from the offering of

poverty]]

[birds]

and wealth]]

[animals],

did the Merciful One not exclude him?!]]

And we reject this:

That cannot enter your mind!]]

For it is written there,

“And the priest shall atone for him for his sin that he committed from one of these,”]]

and we derive:

one who receives atonement through one]]

of these—that it is possible for him to bring either a wealthy person’s sacrifice, a poor person’s sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the poorest person, and his law depends on his financial situation—he

receives atonement through all of them.]] But one

who

does not receive atonement through one]]

of these, such as an anointed priest, who was excluded from one-tenth of an ephah [as we derived above: “This is the offering of Aaron,” that he does not bring another one-tenth of an ephah],

does not receive atonement through all of them!]]

We ask:

But from now on, since it is written, “And it shall be, when he is guilty of one of these,”]]

[hearing a voice, an oath of utterance, or impurity of the Temple and its sacred things], shall

so too]]

we derive

that everyone who becomes liable for each one]]

of the three

becomes liable for all of them, and one who does not become liable for one]]

of them, such as a prince, who does not become liable for hearing a voice,

does not become liable for all of them,]] like Rabbi Yosei the Galilean?

as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds?

And if so, this is difficult:

Why then did we learn: Rabbi Akiva says, a prince is liable]]

for all of them

except hearing a voice?!]]

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both said]]:

There is no difficulty. For it may be said that the exposition requiring him to be fit for all the levels of the sacrifice was derived from the verse, “And the priest shall atone for him for his sin that he committed

from one,”]]

and only this verse

appears to him]]

—to Rabbi Akiva—to have been written for exposition. But what they said, that his liability depends on whether he can become liable for a sacrifice for all three transgressions, and that they derived this from the verse, “when he is guilty

of one,” does not appear to him!]]

And we raised an objection concerning this:

And what is different

about the word

“from one,” which seems to him

according to Rabbi Akiva to have been written in order to derive from it: “until he achieves atonement through each and every one”?

And we explain: because

the Merciful One wrote it at the end

of the passage,

with regard to the tenth of an ephah,

which is the offering of the poorest person, and Rabbi Akiva understood that it was written there

to indicate—

that anyone who is obligated in a tenth of an ephah is obligated in all of them,

and to exclude the High Priest from the sliding-scale sin offering, for he does not bring a tenth of an ephah, because it is written: “This is the offering of Aaron and his sons.”

And the necessity for this derivation is proven.

For if it enters your mind that one becomes obligated in one even though he does not become obligated in all of them, this “from one of these” should have been written in poverty

[with turtledoves or young pigeons],

or alternatively in wealth

[with a female sheep or a female goat], through which the anointed priest becomes obligated, and we would know that it is possible to become obligated in them even though he does not become obligated in the poorest offering.

However, since the word “from one” was written specifically in the poorest poverty [with the tenth of an ephah], it indicates that the Torah comes to teach us that a High Priest who does not bring a tenth of an ephah is exempt from all of them!

Mishna:

1.

All the negative commandments

of the Torah

for which one is liable to excision for their intentional violation and a sin offering for their unwitting violation: the individual—

brings

for his sin offering

a female sheep or a female goat.

And the ruler—

a male goat.

And the anointed priest and the court—

bring a bull.

And

if they erred

in idolatry—

the individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest—

bring a female goat.

As it is written in the passage of Shelach: “And if one person sins unwittingly,” and every individual is included in the category of one person.

And the court—

a bull and a male goat: a bull for a burnt offering and a male goat for a sin offering.

2.

A provisional guilt offering—

the individual and the ruler are liable

for it,

and the anointed priest and the court are exempt 9 .

3.

A definite guilt offering—

The ordinary individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest are liable

The individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest are liable

for it,

and the court is exempt.

4.

For hearing the voice, for the utterance of the lips, and for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

for which the individual brings a sliding-scale offering—

the court is exempt.

And the individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest are liable

for an offering , and below it will be explained which one.

Rather, a High Priest who is anointed is not liable for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.

[And the same is true that a ruler is not liable for hearing the voice, since a king does not testify.]

And what are they,

the individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest,

bringing

for hearing the voice, the utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Temple and its sacred things [each with the offering in which he is liable]?—

A sliding-scale offering,

as is the law of an individual.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler

does not bring a sliding-scale offering like an individual, but

brings a male goat

like the fixed sin offering of a ruler! [And in the Gemara it will be explained regarding which sin Rabbi Eliezer disagreed.]

And three disputes are found regarding this:

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds that a ruler and an anointed priest are exempt from a sliding-scale offering for all the sins.

Rabbi Akiva holds that a ruler is liable in all of them except hearing the voice, while an anointed priest is exempt from all of them.

Rabbi Shimon holds that a ruler and an anointed priest are liable in all of them, except for a ruler in the case of hearing the voice and an anointed priest in the case of impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon would establish

with regard to them

a principle—

1.

Whenever an individual brings a provisional guilt offering—

the ruler

is liable

in the same way,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt

from it.

2.

And whenever one brings a definite guilt offering—

a ruler and an anointed priest

are liable

in the same way, and the court is exempt.

3.

Hearing the voice, the utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

for which an individual is liable for a sliding-scale offering—

the court is exempt,

whereas

a ruler and an anointed priest are liable.

Rather, a ruler is not liable for hearing the voice

because he does not testify,

nor is an anointed priest liable for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

but he achieves atonement for it through his bull on Yom Kippur.

4.

Whenever there is a sliding-scale offering—

a ruler

is liable

in the same way,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt,

because the public and the anointed priest are liable only for something whose sin offering is fixed.

And we challenge:

This itself is difficult: you said

at the beginning

that an anointed priest is not liable for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

and it implies that only

for impurity of the Temple and its sacred things is he exempt, but for hearing the voice and the utterance of the lips he is liable!

Come and hear the latter clause: whenever there is a sliding-scale offering—

a ruler

is liable

in the same way,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt!

And the Gemara analyzes:

It teaches, “the anointed priest and the court are exempt,”

and it implies that their law is equal. That is,

just as the court is exempt from all of them,

since its liability is only for a fixed sin offering,

so too is the anointed priest exempt from all of them,

since his liability is only for a fixed sin offering.