Horayot 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yirmeya would say: It is stated

in the passage concerning the adjustable offering, “And if

his hand does not reach,” and it is stated

“And if

his hand does not suffice,” and

this indicates:

One who may come into a state of poverty or wealth

is obligated to bring an adjustable offering.

The נשיא and the anointed priest are excluded, for they

do not

come into a state of poverty!

And the Gemara explains: From where do we know that a נשיא and an anointed priest do not come into a state of poverty?

With regard to a נשיא,

it is because

it is written: “And he commits one of all the mitzvot of Hashem his God.”

And we expound:

One over whom there is no

authority higher than he,

other than Hashem his God;

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

With regard to an anointed priest, it is written: “And the high priest from among his brothers,”

and we expound:

He is greater than his brothers in appearance, strength, wisdom, and wealth 2 .

2.

Others say: From where is it derived that if he does not possess

wealth,

he is to be made greater

through financial wealth

than his brothers?

The verse states: “And the high priest from among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”—

make him greater than his brothers!

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

and was removed from his position of נשיא,

and

during the period in which he was removed from office he committed a transgression for which an ordinary person is liable to bring an adjustable offering,

what

is his ruling?

Is he then considered as though he has been

entirely displaced

from his position of נשיא, and is therefore like an ordinary person and liable to bring an adjustable offering?

Or

perhaps

he remains exempt,

for he is only temporarily not serving in his position, but he is still legally a נשיא and is exempt from the adjustable offering?

He said to him:

From whose money will the נשיא who became a leper bring his offering? From

your [

own] money,

or

from

the treasury,

from his private stores? [That is, it is obvious that he will bring his offering from his own money. Since the reason for his exemption is his wealth, and his wealth was not affected by his leprosy, it is obvious that he remains exempt even when he transgressed while a leper, since the reason for the exemption—that he does not come into a state of poverty—also exists during his leprosy.]

It is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Akiva says: An anointed priest is exempt from all of them!

Rabba said: What is the reason of Rabbi Akiva? The verse states

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

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

and we expound:

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

the one in the adjustable offering, in which the poorest person brings a tenth of an ephah as his offering,

comes as an obligation for him.

And since he was excluded from the one-tenth-of-an-ephah offering of the adjustable offering, he was excluded and exempted from all the categories stated with regard to the adjustable offering. [

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 the anointed priest’s bull for them as well!] And we challenge this:

Perhaps, when the Merciful One excludes him,

it is only

from the poorest level of poverty

of the adjustable offering.

And what is that? The one-tenth of an ephah. But

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 expound:

One who achieves atonement through one

of these offerings—meaning that he could bring either a wealthy person’s offering, a poor person’s offering, or the offering of the poorest person, with his status determined by his financial circumstances—

achieves atonement through all of them.

But one

who does not achieve atonement through one

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

does not achieve atonement through all of them!

We ask:

If so, since it is written: “And it shall be, when he incurs guilt through one of these,” [

hearing a voice, an oath of utterance, or contracting ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred objects], do

we likewise

expound

that anyone liable for each one

of the three

is liable for all of them, while one who is not liable for one

of them—such as a נשיא, who is not liable for hearing a voice—

is not liable for all of them,

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?

And if so, this is difficult:

Why did we learn: Rabbi Akiva says, a נשיא is liable

for all of them

except for hearing a voice?!

And we answer:

Abaye and Rava both say:

It is not difficult. The exposition that one must be fit for all the categories of the offering 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 have been written for the purpose of expounding it, according to Rabbi Akiva. But the statement that one’s liability depends on whether he can be liable for an offering for all three transgressions, derived from the verse, “When he incurs guilt through

one,” does not appear to him!

And we raised this difficulty:

And what is different

about the word

“from one,” implying to Rabbi Akiva

that it was written in order to expound 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, Rabbi Akiva understood that it was written there

to indicate—

that anyone who is liable to bring a tenth of an ephah is liable to bring all of them,

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

And the necessity for this exposition is evident.

For if it could enter your mind that one becomes liable for one of them even though he does not become liable for all of them, it should have written this phrase, “from one of these,” in the context of poverty

[with turtledoves or young pigeons],

or alternatively in the context of wealth

[with a female lamb or a female goat], for in those cases the anointed priest is liable, and we would know that one can become liable for them even though he is not liable for the poorest offering.

However, since the word “from one” was written specifically with regard to the poorest of the poor [the tenth of an ephah], it implies 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:

a.

All the negative commandments

of the Torah

for which one is liable to receive karet for intentional violation and for which one brings a sin-offering for unwitting violation: an ordinary individual—

brings

for his sin-offering

a female lamb or a female goat.

And the ruler—

a male goat.

And an anointed priest and the court—

bring a bull.

And

if they erred

with regard to idolatry—

the ordinary individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest—

bring a female goat.

As it is written in the passage concerning the scouts: “And if one person sins unwittingly,” and every individual is considered 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.

b.

For a provisional guilt-offering—

the ordinary individual and the ruler are liable

for it,

but the anointed priest and the court are exempt 9 .

c.

For a definite guilt-offering—

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

for it,

but the court is exempt.

d.

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

for which an ordinary individual brings a sliding-scale offering—

the court is exempt.

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

for an offering ,

and below it will be explained which offering this is.

Rather, a High Priest who is an anointed priest is not liable for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

[The same applies to a ruler, who is not liable for hearing a voice, since a king does not testify.]

And what do

the ordinary individual, the ruler, and the anointed priest

bring

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

A sliding-scale offering,

as is the law of an ordinary individual.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The ruler

does not bring a sliding-scale offering like an ordinary individual; rather, he

brings a male goat

like the fixed sin-offering of a ruler! [And the Gemara will explain with regard to which transgression Rabbi Eliezer disagrees.]

And three disputes emerge concerning this matter:

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

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

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

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon would establish

with regard to them

a general principle—

a.

For every case in which an ordinary individual brings a provisional guilt-offering—

the ruler

is liable

for the same offering,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt

from it.

b.

And for every case in which one brings a definite guilt-offering—

the ruler and the anointed priest

are liable

for the same offering, while the court is exempt.

c.

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

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

the court is exempt,

whereas

the ruler and the anointed priest are liable.

Rather, the ruler is not liable for hearing a voice

because he does not testify,

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

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

d.

For every case involving a sliding-scale offering—

the ruler

is liable

for the same offering,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt,

because the community and the anointed priest are liable only for a matter whose sin-offering is fixed.

And we challenge this:

This itself is difficult: You said

at the beginning

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

which implies that he is exempt only

from the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, but is liable for hearing a voice and for an utterance of the lips!

Come and hear the latter clause: For every case involving a sliding-scale offering—

the ruler

is liable

for the same offering,

whereas

the anointed priest and the court are exempt!

And the Gemara infers:

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

which implies that their laws are the same. That is,

just as the court is exempt from all of them,

since its liability is only for a fixed sin-offering,

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

since his liability is only for a fixed sin-offering.