Horayot 9b — the Talmud in English

And if so,

the beginning and the end are contradictory

to one another

?!

And we answer:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: It is not difficult.

Here, it is with a

sacrifice of

poverty [turtledoves or young pigeons],

the anointed one is liable for it.

Here, it is with extreme poverty [a tenth of an ephah],

a tenth of an ephah, from which he is exempt, as they expounded above from what is written concerning the griddle-cakes of the High Priest, “This is the offering of Aaron”: only with the griddle-cakes do we find that an anointed koen is liable to bring a tenth of an ephah, and no other tenth of an ephah comes to him as an obligation.

And Rabbi Shimon agrees with Rabbi Akiva in one matter, and disagrees

with him

in one matter.

He agrees with Rabbi Akiva,

who exempts the anointed one

with regard to extreme poverty. And he disagrees with him with regard to poverty.

For according to Rabbi Akiva, the anointed one is entirely exempt from the ascending-and-descending offering, because of the principle that whoever does not achieve atonement through one of them does not achieve atonement through any of them. Whereas Rabbi Shimon’s view is that an anointed koen is exempt only from extreme poverty, but is liable for the other levels of the offering .

We learned in the Mishna: According to the words of Rabbi Shimon, the anointed one is liable for an ascending-and-descending offering for hearing the voice and for an utterance of the lips,

except that an anointed High Priest is not liable

to bring an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

Hezekiah said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? For it is written

concerning impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things,

“And that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation.”

And we expound:

Whoever’s offering is equal to that of the congregation,

that is, every individual who achieves atonement together with the entire congregation on Yom Kippur , he is the one who throughout the entire year is liable to bring an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

This one is excluded,

the anointed koen,

whose offering is not equal to that of the congregation,

for the congregation achieves atonement on Yom Kippur through the blood of the goat, whereas the anointed koen achieves atonement through the blood of the bull.

And we wonder:

If so, a ruler’s offering, too, is not equal to that of the congregation,

for throughout the rest of the year the congregation achieves atonement through the bull for the unawareness of a matter of the congregation, whereas the ruler achieves atonement through a goat , and if so, should the ruler also be excluded from an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, like the anointed koen? And we answer: The rule for liability for an ascending-and-descending offering is that the one achieving atonement must be equal to the congregation

with regard to atonement on Yom Kippur,

and indeed in this the ruler is equal to the congregation, for he too achieves atonement through the goat of the congregation, and not through the bull of the High Priest.

And we refute:

If so,

that the exclusion teaches us to make liability for an ascending-and-descending offering dependent on one who is equal to the congregation with regard to atonement on Yom Kippur,

the kohanim too

should be excluded from an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, for the kohanim

are not equal to the congregation with regard to atonement on Yom Kippur,

for they achieve atonement through the bull of the High Priest, whereas the entire congregation achieves atonement through the blood of the goat?!

And we answer:

The kohanim are equal

to the congregation; they are considered equal for the congregation’s atonement, since they achieve atonement together with the congregation through the bull for the unawareness of a matter

with regard to the other mitzvot of the entire year!

And we wonder: If so,

the anointed one too

how is he excluded,

for

he

is equal

in achieving atonement through the bull for the unawareness of a matter of the congregation when he issued a ruling together with the congregation

with regard to the other mitzvot of the year?

Rather, Rava said: Say it this way—

It is written concerning impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, “And that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation,” and we expound:

Whoever has a sin-offering equal to that of individuals—and what is it? The congregation!

That is, only the congregation is considered equal to individuals. For when all of them act through an unwitting act without a ruling of the court, each one of the congregation becomes liable for an individual sin-offering, and therefore he also becomes liable for an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

But the anointed koen is not equal to individuals with regard to a sin-offering, for he is liable for an unwitting act only if he issued a ruling for himself; therefore he is exempt from an ascending-and-descending offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The ruler brings a goat,

etc., for which an individual is liable for an ascending-and-descending offering, since this is the law of the ruler’s sin-offering.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Eliezer did not say

that the ruler brings a goat in a place where an individual brings an ascending-and-descending offering,

except with regard to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things,

for its ascending-and-descending offering has a similarity to a fixed sin-offering,

since it was stated concerning it

in its punishment for an intentional act

excision, like

a

fixed sin-offering.

And for every transgression whose intentional violation carries excision and whose unwitting violation carries a sin-offering, the ruler brings a goat for it, whether the individual brings a fixed sin-offering for it or brings an ascending-and-descending offering, because this is the ruler’s atonement for an unwitting violation carrying excision.

But for hearing the voice and an utterance of the lips, which are merely prohibitions, and for which one who acts intentionally is not liable to excision, the ruler too brings an ascending-and-descending offering for them .

Rav Pappa said: This too is logical,

that Rabbi Eliezer did not make the ruler liable to bring a goat for all three transgressions, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

For if it enters your mind that Rabbi Eliezer speaks of all of them,

that the ruler brings a goat, then it is difficult:

After all, the goat

of

the ruler, and

likewise

the bull

of

the anointed one,

behold, it

stands in place of

the offering that

an individual brings for a sin-offering,

and if it is said that according to Rabbi Eliezer the ruler brings his special sin-offering for all three transgressions, even though their intentional violations do not carry excision as does a fixed sin-offering, then the anointed koen too should be liable to bring his bull for them. And if so,

let it also teach: The anointed one brings a bull for hearing the voice and for an utterance of the lips?! Rather, since it does not teach

that the

anointed one

is liable for a bull for all three,

infer from it that with regard to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things

alone

Rabbi Eliezer stands

to make the ruler liable for a goat, because its intentional violation carries excision. And the reason Rabbi Eliezer did not say that the anointed one brings a bull is that he held

that the anointed one is exempt

from bringing a bull, even for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, since Rabbi Eliezer agrees here with Rabbi Shimon, who exempts a High Priest from bringing an offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where

is it that Rabbi Eliezer makes the ruler liable for a goat only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, and exempts the anointed one from a bull for it, according to Rabbi Shimon?

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer stands with regard to all of them

and makes the ruler liable for a goat for all three, even though their intentional violations do not carry excision,

and with regard to the anointed one he agrees with Rabbi Akiva, who says: The anointed one is exempt from all of them,

and therefore he did not mention that the anointed one becomes liable for a bull for all three.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa:

And Rabbi Akiva

himself,

did he exempt him

the anointed one

from a bull 6 ,

for it is possible to say that he exempted him only from an ascending-and-descending offering, but he must bring his special bull for his sin-offering?!

And if so, the proof returns from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer did not say that the anointed one brings a bull for all three. For with regard to the ruler too, he did not make him liable for a goat for all three, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, whose intentional violation carries excision. [Whereas the anointed one does not bring a bull for it, since he agrees with Rabbi Shimon, who exempts the anointed one from impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things].

And there is nothing more to say,

and nothing further will be difficult for you!

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Eliezer concedes

that one who obligates a ruler to bring a goat for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things,

that

every person, and even a ruler,

brings a provisional guilt offering

for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things. For although karet is stated concerning it, as with a fixed sin-offering, and the ruler brings a goat for it, which is his fixed sin-offering, nevertheless, since an ordinary individual brings for it only a graduated offering, his sin-offering is considered not fixed, and one does not bring a provisional guilt offering in a case of doubt!

A tanna recited before Rav Sheshet: A provisional guilt offering comes for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things

since karet is stated concerning it, as with a fixed sin-offering.

He said to him

Rav Sheshet:

The one who said this to you, who is he? —

It is Rabbi Eliezer, who says: Since karet is stated concerning it, as with a fixed sin-offering,

therefore

the ruler brings a goat for it!

And we object: Is it possible to say that Rabbi Eliezer said this?

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that he does not bring

every person

a provisional guilt offering

for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

We shall return to you, chapter “The Anointed Priest Who Instructed”

Mishna:

An anointed priest who sinned and afterward passed from his anointed status,

and likewise a prince who sinned and afterward passed from his high position

An anointed priest brings a bull,

as though he were still anointed,

and the prince brings a he-goat,

as he brings when he was a prince.

An anointed priest who passed from his anointed status and afterward sinned, and likewise a prince who passed from his high position and afterward sinned,

their laws differ:

An anointed priest brings a bull,

for although he passed from his priesthood, his law remains that of an anointed priest. Whereas

the prince

after he passed from his princedom brings like a female sheep or a female goat, because his law is

like that of a common person.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection to it

Now one can say,

Since the tanna stated in the latter clause of the Mishna that even if

he passed

the anointed priest

from his anointed status,