Horayot 9b (ט:) — the Talmud in English

And if so,

the beginning and the conclusion are contradictory

to one another

to one another?!

And we answer:

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

Here, with regard to a

sacrifice of

poverty

(turtledoves or young pigeons), the anointed priest is liable for it.

Here, with regard to the poorest offering

(one-tenth of an ephah), from which he is exempt, as they expounded above from the verse concerning the griddle-cakes of the High Priest: “This is the offering of Aaron”—only with regard to the griddle-cakes do we find that an anointed priest is liable to bring one-tenth of an ephah; no other one-tenth of an ephah comes as an obligation upon him.

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

with him

in one matter.

He agrees with Rabbi Akiva,

who exempts an anointed priest

in the case of the poorest offering. But he disagrees with him with regard to the poverty offering.

For according to Rabbi Akiva, an anointed priest is entirely exempt from the sliding-scale offering, because of the principle that anyone who cannot achieve atonement through one of them cannot achieve atonement through any of them. Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, maintains that an anointed priest is exempt only from the poorest offering, but is liable for the other levels of the offering .

We learned in the Mishna: According to Rabbi Shimon, an anointed priest is liable for the sliding-scale offering in cases of hearing the voice and an utterance of the lips,

but an anointed High Priest is not liable

to bring a sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

Ḥizkiya said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written

with regard to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects:

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

And we expound:

The one whose offering is the same as that of the congregation,

that is, every individual whose atonement is achieved together with that of the entire congregation on Yom Kippur, is the one who, throughout the year, is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

This one is excluded,

the anointed priest,

whose offering is not the same as that of the congregation,

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

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, a ruler should also not have an offering equal to that of the congregation,

since throughout the rest of the year the congregation achieves atonement through the bull brought for the unwitting decision of the community, whereas the ruler achieves atonement through a goat . If so, should the ruler likewise be excluded from the sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, like the anointed priest? And we answer: The principle governing liability for a sliding-scale offering is that the one achieving atonement must be equal to the community

with regard to the atonement of Yom Kippur.

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

And we refute this:

If so,

if the exclusion teaches us to make liability for a sliding-scale offering dependent upon being equal to the community with regard to atonement on Yom Kippur,

the priests should also

be excluded from the sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, since the priests

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

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 priests are equal

to the congregation and are considered equal to it with regard to atonement, since they achieve atonement together with the community through the bull for the unwitting decision of the community

for the other mitzvot of the entire year!

And we raise a difficulty: If so,

an anointed priest should also

be excluded? How can

this one

who

is equal

in achieving atonement through the bull for the unwitting decision of the community when he issued a ruling together with the community

for the other mitzvot of the year be excluded?

Rather, Rava said: Say it this way—

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

One whose sin-offering is equal to that of ordinary individuals—and who is that? The congregation!

That is, only the congregation is considered equal to ordinary individuals. When everyone acts through an unwitting act, without a ruling by the court, each member of the congregation becomes liable to bring an individual sin-offering; therefore, he is also liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

But the anointed priest is not equal to ordinary individuals with regard to a sin-offering, since he is liable for an unwitting act only when he issued a ruling for himself. Therefore, he is exempt from a sliding-scale offering for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: The ruler brings a goat

for those matters for which an ordinary individual is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, for this is the law of the ruler’s sin-offering.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Eliezer stated

that the ruler brings a goat in place of the offering that an ordinary individual brings as a sliding-scale offering

only with regard to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects,

since its sliding-scale offering bears a similarity to a fixed sin-offering,

because it was stated concerning it

that its intentional violation is punished by

karet, as with a

sin-offering

fixed.

For every transgression whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation entails a sin-offering, the ruler brings a goat, whether an ordinary individual brings a fixed sin-offering for it or brings a sliding-scale offering, because this is the ruler’s atonement for an unwitting violation punishable by karet.

But for hearing the voice and an utterance of the lips, which involve merely a prohibition, and for whose intentional violation one is not liable to karet, the ruler also brings a sliding-scale offering .

Rav Pappa said: It is also logical that Rabbi Eliezer did not obligate the ruler to bring a goat for all three transgressions, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

Rav Pappa said: It is also logical that Rabbi Eliezer did not obligate the ruler to bring a goat for all three transgressions, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.

For if it should enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer was speaking about all of them,

saying that the ruler brings a goat, the following difficulty would arise:

Since the goat

of the

ruler, and the

likewise

the bull

of the

anointed priest,

is

in place of

the offering brought by

an ordinary individual for a sin-offering, it stands,

and if, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the ruler brings his special sin-offering for all three transgressions, even though their intentional violation is not punishable by karet as is a fixed sin-offering, then the anointed priest should likewise be liable to bring his bull for them. If so,

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

that the

anointed priest

is liable to bring a bull for all three,

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

alone that

Rabbi Eliezer stands

to obligate the ruler to bring a goat, because its intentional violation is punishable by karet. And the reason Rabbi Eliezer did not say that the anointed priest brings a bull is that he maintains

that an anointed priest is exempt

from bringing a bull even for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, 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 objects.

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

do you know that Rabbi Eliezer obligates the ruler to bring a goat only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, while exempting the anointed priest from bringing a bull for it, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer was speaking about all of them

and obligates the ruler to bring a goat for all three, even though their intentional violation is not punishable by karet,

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

therefore, he did not mention that an anointed priest is liable to bring a bull for all three.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa:

And did Rabbi Akiva

himself

exempt him

the anointed priest

from the bull 6 ,

for perhaps he exempted him only from a sliding-scale offering, but he must still bring his special bull for his sin?!

If so, the proof returns from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer did not say that an anointed priest brings a bull for all three. For he likewise did not obligate a ruler to bring a goat for all three, but only for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects, whose intentional violation is punishable by karet. [As for the anointed priest, he does not bring a bull for it because he agrees with Rabbi Shimon, who exempts an anointed priest from impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred objects.]

And that is all there is to it,

and you will no longer find anything difficult!

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that

he who obligates a nasi to bring a goat for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things

does not

—every person, and even a nasi—

bring an asham talui

for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things. For although karet is stated with regard to it, as with a fixed sin offering, and the nasi brings a goat for it, which is his fixed sin offering, nevertheless, since an ordinary individual brings for it only a variable offering, his sin offering is considered not to be fixed, and an asham talui is not brought in a case of uncertainty

A tanna recited before Rav Sheshet: An asham talui is brought for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things

since karet is stated with regard to it, as with a fixed sin offering.

Rav Sheshet said to him:

Rav Sheshet

: “The statement that he cited to you—whose opinion is it?” It is

Rabbi Eliezer’s, who says: Since karet is stated with regard to it, as with a fixed sin offering,

therefore

the nasi brings a goat for it!

And we raise an objection: Can it be said that Rabbi Eliezer said this?

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

every person

an asham talui

for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things.

And we conclude:

This is difficult!

We have completed the chapter “A Nasi Who Is an Anointed Priest.”

Mishna:

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

and likewise a nasi who sinned and then was removed from his position of authority

An anointed priest brings a bull,

as though he were still anointed,

and the nasi brings a goat,

as he would bring when he was nasi.

An anointed priest who passed from his anointed status and then sinned, and likewise a nasi who was removed from his position of authority and then sinned,

have different laws:

An anointed priest brings a bull,

because although he passed from his priestly office, his law remains that of an anointed priest. Whereas

the nasi

after being removed from his position of authority brings a female sheep or female goat, because his law is

that of an ordinary person.

Gemara:

We raise the following difficulty

Now, it may be said:

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

he passed

the anointed priest

from his anointed status,