Horayot 9
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Horayot 9
״לֹא תַגִּיעַ יָדוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת. יָצָא נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת,
“And if his means suffice not” (Leviticus 5:7), and it is stated: “And if his means not suffice” (Leviticus 5:11), indicating that the sliding-scale offering applies only to one who can come to a state of poverty and wealth. This serves to exclude a king and an anointed priest, who cannot come to a state of poverty.
נָשִׂיא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״. מִי שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו. מָשִׁיחַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״, שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו בְּנוֹי, בְּכֹחַ, בְּחָכְמָה וּבְעוֹשֶׁר. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״ – גַּדְּלֵהוּ מֵאֶחָיו.
The king cannot become poor, as it is written concerning him: “And he performed one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to the king as one who has only the Lord his God upon him. He is greater than the entire nation and is not a poor person dependent on others. An anointed priest cannot become poor, as it is written: “And the priest that is greatest among his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10), meaning that he is greater than his brethren in beauty, in power, in wisdom, and in wealth, not a poor person. Others say: From where is it derived that if the High Priest does not have personal wealth, one should make him great from the property of his brethren? The verse states: “And the priest that is greatest among his brethren upon whose head the anointing oil is poured” (Leviticus 21:10), from which it is derived: Make him great from the property of his brethren, who will provide him with enough property to render him wealthy.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבִינָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: נָשִׂיא שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, מַהוּ? מִידְחָא דְּחֵי, אוֹ מִיפְטָר פְּטִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּילָךְ, אוֹ דְּגַזָּא?
Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: In the case of a king who was afflicted with leprosy and unfit to serve as king during his affliction, what is his status with regard to the sliding-scale offering? Previously, during his reign, was he completely eliminated from the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering to the extent that even now, when he is no longer king, he remains exempt? Or was he merely exempted, so that now that he is no longer king he is obligated to bring the offering? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Ravina: Does he bring the offering from your property, i.e., public property, or does he bring the offering from his personal treasure [degazza]? Since he obviously would bring the offering from his own personal treasure, he remains exempt from bringing the offering.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״. זוֹ בָּאָה חוֹבָה לוֹ, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת בָּאָה חוֹבָה לוֹ.
§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: An anointed priest is exempt from bringing an offering in all the cases where one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? It is as the verse states: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons that they shall offer unto the Lord on the day that he is anointed: One-tenth part of an ephah of fine flour as a meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:13). One can infer: It is this tenth of an ephah that comes as an obligation for him, and no other such offering comes as an obligation for him.
וְאֵימָא: כִּי מְמַעֵט לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא – מִדַּלֵּי דַלּוּת, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. אֲבָל עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת, לָא מַעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״. הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת – מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּכוּלָּן, וְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת – אֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּכוּלָּן.
The Gemara asks: But why not say that when the Merciful One excludes an anointed priest, it is particularly from the type of sliding-scale offering brought due to extreme poverty? And what is it? The one-tenth of an ephah meal-offering mentioned in the verse. But the Merciful One did not exclude him from the dove brought as a sliding-scale offering due to poverty and the sheep brought as a sliding-scale offering by one with wealth. The Gemara rejects this: That should not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the sliding-scale offering: “And the priest shall atone for him for his sin that he has committed from one of these” (Leviticus 5:13), from which it is derived: One who gains atonement with every one of the types of a sliding-scale offering gains atonement with any of the types of the sliding-scale offering, and one who does not gain atonement with every one of the types of a sliding-scale offering does not gain atonement with any of the types of the sliding-scale offering.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי: דְּכׇל הַמִּתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת – מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן, וְשֶׁאֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת – אֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָשִׂיא חַיָּיב חוּץ מִשְּׁמִיעַת קוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, and the verse is interpreted in that manner, then that which is written there: “And it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these matters” (Leviticus 5:5), so too shall be interpreted: Anyone who becomes liable in every one of the instances for which one brings a sliding-scale offering can become liable in any of those instances, and anyone who does not become liable in every one of the instances to bring a sliding-scale offering cannot become liable in any of those instances. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: The king is liable in all of these cases except for the case of hearing of a voice, indicating that he can become liable in the rest of the instances even if he is exempt in one?
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״מֵאַחַת״ מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ, ״לְאַחַת״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא ״מֵאַחַת״ דְּמַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ?
Abaye and Rava both say to resolve this difficulty: Rabbi Akiva learns this inference from the term: “From one” (Leviticus 5:13). He does not learn anything from the term: “Of one” (Leviticus 5:5). The Gemara asks: And what is different about the term “from one” that he learns a halakha from it?
דְּכַתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְבַסּוֹף גַּבֵּי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, לְמֵימְרָא דְּכֹל דְּמִחַיַּיב בַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה – מִחַיַּיב בְּכוּלָּן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן, נִכְתְּבֵיהּ לְהַאי ״מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״ בְּדַלּוּת, אִי נָמֵי בַּעֲשִׁירוּת.
The Gemara answers: The difference is that the Merciful One wrote it at the end of the passage discussing the sliding-scale offering, with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah meal-offering, to say that anyone who can become liable to bring the one-tenth of an ephah can become liable to bring any of them. As, if it enters your mind to say that one can become liable to bring one even though he cannot become liable to bring any one of them, let the Torah write this phrase: From one of these, with regard to the offering brought due to poverty, or alternatively, with regard to the offering brought by one with wealth. Since this term does not appear with regard to one of the other offerings, apparently, it is specifically with regard to the offering brought due to extreme poverty that one who cannot become liable for that offering is exempt from the entire matter.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָן חַטָּאת – הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה, וְהַנָּשִׂיא שָׂעִיר, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין פַּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ מְבִיאִין שְׂעִירָה, וּבֵית דִּין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר; פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת.
MISHNA: In summation: For all mitzvot that are in the Torah for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, the individual brings a ewe or female goat for their unwitting transgression, and the king brings a male goat for their unwitting transgression, and an anointed priest and a court who issued an erroneous ruling bring a bull. And for unwittingly engaging in idol worship, the individual, and the king, and the anointed priest bring a female goat, and the court brings a bull and a goat: A bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering.
אָשָׁם תָּלוּי – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּיבִין, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. אָשָׁם וַדַּאי – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
With regard to a provisional guilt-offering, the individual and the king are liable, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. With regard to a definite guilt-offering, the individual, the king, and the anointed priest are liable, and a court is exempt.
עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְעַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, וְהַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר.
For hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony, and for a false oath on an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, a court is exempt, and the individual, the king, and the anointed priest are liable. But an anointed High Priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And what offering are they liable to bring? It is a sliding-scale offering based on their financial circumstances, as delineated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:1–13). Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָיָה נוֹתֵן כְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהַיָּחִיד בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי – הַנָּשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. וְכֹל שֶׁהוּא בְּאָשָׁם וַדַּאי – נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon would posit a principle: For any case in which the individual is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the status of the king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. And for any case in which an individual is liable to bring a definite guilt-offering, the status of a king and an anointed priest is like that of the individual, and the court is exempt.
שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּיב בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְלֹא מָשִׁיחַ בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד – נָשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
He continues: For hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony, and for a false oath on an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, a court is exempt, and a king and an anointed priest are liable. But the king is not liable in a case of hearing of a voice, and an anointed priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. In general, for any case for which an individual is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, the status of a king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt.
הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: שֶׁאֵין מָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיב בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – הוּא דְּפָטוּר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם – חַיָּיב. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד – נָשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, קָתָנֵי: מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, מָה בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין מִכּוּלְּהוֹן – אַף מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר מִכּוּלְּהוֹן.
The Gemara expresses surprise: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that an anointed priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and by inference: It is for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that he is exempt, but he is liable for hearing of a voice and for a statement of the lips. Say the latter clause of the baraita: For any case for which an individual is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, the status of a king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. He teaches: An anointed priest and a court are exempt; just as a court is exempt from all of the sliding-scale offerings, so too, an anointed priest is exempt from all of them, not only from the offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי!
If so, these two passages are difficult, as they contradict one another.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בְּדַלּוּת, כָּאן – בְּדַלֵּי דַלּוּת. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בַּחֲדָא וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא: סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּדַלֵּי דַלּוּת דְּפָטוּר, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בְּדַלּוּת.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between the rulings. Here, in the passage that deems the anointed priest liable in cases other than the defiling the Temple, it is in the case of an offering brought due to poverty, whereas there, in the latter clause, it is in the case of an offering brought due to extreme poverty. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to one halakha and disagrees with him with regard to one other halakha. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the case of extreme poverty that the anointed priest is exempt from bringing that meal-offering. And he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva in the case of poverty, as he does not hold that the anointed priest is completely exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering.
אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָּיב כּוּ׳. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל״, מִי שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: But an anointed High Priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Ḥizkiyya said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is written with regard to one who becomes ritually impure and enters the Temple: “And a man who shall be impure, and shall not be purified, that soul shall be excised [venikhreta] from the midst of the congregation, because he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord; the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled on him: He is impure” (Numbers 19:20). It is derived from this verse that this halakha applies specifically to one whose offering equals the offering of the congregation, i.e., the Jewish people. This serves to exclude the High Priest, as his offering does not equal the offering of the congregation, as on Yom Kippur he brings a bull for his unwitting transgression, while he brings a goat to achieve atonement for the Jewish people.
אִם כֵּן, נָשִׂיא נָמֵי – אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל! שָׁוֶה בְּכַפָּרָה דְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִם כֵּן, כֹּהֲנִים נָמֵי לֹא שָׁווּ לַקָּהָל בְּכַפָּרָה דְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים! כֹּהֲנִים שָׁווּ לַקָּהָל בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּשָׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, a king too, should be exempt, as his offering does not equal the offering of the congregation, as he brings a goat. The Gemara answers: Even so, the king equals the congregation in the atonement of Yom Kippur, as his atonement is achieved by means of the same offerings through which the rest of the congregation achieves atonement. The Gemara asks: If so, priests too should be exempt from bringing the offering for the defiling of the Temple, as they do not equal the congregation in the atonement of Yom Kippur, as their atonement is achieved by means of the bull of the High Priest. The Gemara answers: Priests equal the congregation with regard to atonement for the rest of the mitzvot of the entire year.
מָשִׁיחַ נָמֵי, הָא שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּשָׁנָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא הָכִי: מִי שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ שָׁוָה לִיחִידִים, וּמַאי נִיהוּ קָהָל.
The Gemara challenges: The anointed priest, too, equals the congregation with regard to atonement for the rest of the mitzvot of the entire year. Rather, Rava said: Say this: One whose sin-offering equals that of individuals. And who are these individuals? They are the congregation. The status of a congregation that performed an unwitting transgression not on the basis of the ruling of the court is that of individuals. The High Priest’s sin-offering is different, as he brings a sin-offering only for an unwitting transgression he performed on the basis of his own ruling.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בּוֹ כְּבִקְבוּעָה.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat, and not a sliding-scale offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion only with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, since karet is stated concerning it, as it is stated in all matters where there is liability to bring a fixed sin-offering. Just as the king brings a goat as a sin-offering for any unwitting transgression for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, so too, he brings a goat for the defiling of the Temple. For other unwitting transgressions for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering and for whose intentional violation one is not liable to receive karet, the king is also liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עַל כּוּלְּהוֹן קָאָמַר, מִכְּדִי שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא וּפַר מָשִׁיחַ בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד לְחַטָּאת קָאֵי. נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר בִּשְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם. אֶלָּא מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי מָשִׁיחַ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַטּוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו קָאֵי, דְּמָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר.
Rav Pappa said: So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Eliezer says that the king brings a goat for all of the transgressions enumerated in the mishna, and the king brings a goat in cases where individuals bring a sliding-scale offering, then since the goat of a king and the bull of an anointed priest stand in place of liability of an individual to bring a sin-offering, let Rabbi Eliezer also teach: An anointed priest brings a bull for hearing of a voice and for an utterance of the lips. Rather, from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer does not teach this halakha with regard to an anointed priest, learn from it that his statement that the king brings a goat stands in reference only to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, with regard to which an anointed priest is exempt, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַכּוּלְּהוֹן קָאֵי, וּבְמָשִׁיחַ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר בְּכוּלָּן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִי פָּטַר לֵיהּ מִפַּר? וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you prove this? Perhaps the statement of Rabbi Eliezer stands in reference to all of them. And with regard to an anointed priest, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: An anointed priest is exempt from all of the cases where one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rav Pappa said to him: And Rabbi Akiva, does he exempt an anointed priest from bringing a bull? Rabbi Akiva exempted him only from bringing a sliding-scale offering, but he holds that the High Priest is liable to bring the offering unique to him, the bull for an unwitting transgression he performed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. And nothing more need be discussed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בָּא עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֱמַר בּוֹ כָּרֵת כְּבִקְבוּעָה, מַיְיתֵי נָשִׂיא שָׂעִיר עָלֶיהָ. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! קַשְׁיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a king does not bring a guilt-offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall recited a baraita before Rav Sheshet: In the case of a king, a provisional guilt-offering comes for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Rav Sheshet said to him: Who said this to you? Is it Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Since karet is stated in its regard as it is stated in all matters where there is liability to bring a fixed sin-offering, a king brings a goat for the defiling of the Temple? Since the status of his offering is like that of a fixed sin-offering, in cases of uncertainty, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Rav Sheshet asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a king does not bring a provisional guilt-offering? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, based on the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the baraita is difficult.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָיךְ הוֹרָה כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ, וְכֵן נָשִׂיא שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִגְּדוּלָּתוֹ – כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר, וְהַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא, וְכֵן הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁעָבַר מִגְּדוּלָּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא – כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר, וְהַנָּשִׂיא כְּהֶדְיוֹט.
MISHNA: In the case of an anointed priest who sinned on the basis of his own erroneous halakhic ruling and thereafter moved on from his anointment, e.g., if he was disqualified due to a blemish that befell him before he brought his sin-offering, and likewise in the case of a king [nasi] who sinned and thereafter moved on from his prominence before he had brought an offering, an anointed priest brings a bull despite the fact that he is no longer the High Priest, and the king brings a goat, as he would have done during his reign. In the case of an anointed priest who moved on from his anointment and thereafter sinned, and likewise the king who moved on from his prominence and thereafter sinned, an anointed priest brings a bull, which he would have brought while he was High Priest, and the status of the king is like that of a commoner [kehedyot].
גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ,
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the formulation of the mishna: Now it can be said: An anointed priest who moved on from his anointment
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Horayot 9
״לֹא תַגִּיעַ יָדוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת. יָצָא נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין בָּאִין לִידֵי עֲנִיּוּת,
“And if his means suffice not” (Leviticus 5:7), and it is stated: “And if his means not suffice” (Leviticus 5:11), indicating that the sliding-scale offering applies only to one who can come to a state of poverty and wealth. This serves to exclude a king and an anointed priest, who cannot come to a state of poverty.
נָשִׂיא – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״. מִי שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו. מָשִׁיחַ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״, שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו בְּנוֹי, בְּכֹחַ, בְּחָכְמָה וּבְעוֹשֶׁר. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר יוּצַק עַל רֹאשׁוֹ״ – גַּדְּלֵהוּ מֵאֶחָיו.
The king cannot become poor, as it is written concerning him: “And he performed one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to the king as one who has only the Lord his God upon him. He is greater than the entire nation and is not a poor person dependent on others. An anointed priest cannot become poor, as it is written: “And the priest that is greatest among his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10), meaning that he is greater than his brethren in beauty, in power, in wisdom, and in wealth, not a poor person. Others say: From where is it derived that if the High Priest does not have personal wealth, one should make him great from the property of his brethren? The verse states: “And the priest that is greatest among his brethren upon whose head the anointing oil is poured” (Leviticus 21:10), from which it is derived: Make him great from the property of his brethren, who will provide him with enough property to render him wealthy.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבִינָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: נָשִׂיא שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, מַהוּ? מִידְחָא דְּחֵי, אוֹ מִיפְטָר פְּטִיר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּילָךְ, אוֹ דְּגַזָּא?
Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: In the case of a king who was afflicted with leprosy and unfit to serve as king during his affliction, what is his status with regard to the sliding-scale offering? Previously, during his reign, was he completely eliminated from the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering to the extent that even now, when he is no longer king, he remains exempt? Or was he merely exempted, so that now that he is no longer king he is obligated to bring the offering? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Ravina: Does he bring the offering from your property, i.e., public property, or does he bring the offering from his personal treasure [degazza]? Since he obviously would bring the offering from his own personal treasure, he remains exempt from bringing the offering.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֶה קׇרְבַּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״. זוֹ בָּאָה חוֹבָה לוֹ, וְאֵין אַחֶרֶת בָּאָה חוֹבָה לוֹ.
§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: An anointed priest is exempt from bringing an offering in all the cases where one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? It is as the verse states: “This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons that they shall offer unto the Lord on the day that he is anointed: One-tenth part of an ephah of fine flour as a meal-offering” (Leviticus 6:13). One can infer: It is this tenth of an ephah that comes as an obligation for him, and no other such offering comes as an obligation for him.
וְאֵימָא: כִּי מְמַעֵט לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא – מִדַּלֵּי דַלּוּת, וּמַאי נִיהוּ? עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. אֲבָל עֲנִיּוּת וַעֲשִׁירוּת, לָא מַעֲטֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״. הַמִּתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת – מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּכוּלָּן, וְשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת – אֵין מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּכוּלָּן.
The Gemara asks: But why not say that when the Merciful One excludes an anointed priest, it is particularly from the type of sliding-scale offering brought due to extreme poverty? And what is it? The one-tenth of an ephah meal-offering mentioned in the verse. But the Merciful One did not exclude him from the dove brought as a sliding-scale offering due to poverty and the sheep brought as a sliding-scale offering by one with wealth. The Gemara rejects this: That should not enter your mind, as it is written with regard to the sliding-scale offering: “And the priest shall atone for him for his sin that he has committed from one of these” (Leviticus 5:13), from which it is derived: One who gains atonement with every one of the types of a sliding-scale offering gains atonement with any of the types of the sliding-scale offering, and one who does not gain atonement with every one of the types of a sliding-scale offering does not gain atonement with any of the types of the sliding-scale offering.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״, הָכִי נָמֵי: דְּכׇל הַמִּתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת – מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן, וְשֶׁאֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת – אֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: נָשִׂיא חַיָּיב חוּץ מִשְּׁמִיעַת קוֹל!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, and the verse is interpreted in that manner, then that which is written there: “And it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these matters” (Leviticus 5:5), so too shall be interpreted: Anyone who becomes liable in every one of the instances for which one brings a sliding-scale offering can become liable in any of those instances, and anyone who does not become liable in every one of the instances to bring a sliding-scale offering cannot become liable in any of those instances. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Akiva says: The king is liable in all of these cases except for the case of hearing of a voice, indicating that he can become liable in the rest of the instances even if he is exempt in one?
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״מֵאַחַת״ מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ, ״לְאַחַת״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ. וּמַאי שְׁנָא ״מֵאַחַת״ דְּמַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ?
Abaye and Rava both say to resolve this difficulty: Rabbi Akiva learns this inference from the term: “From one” (Leviticus 5:13). He does not learn anything from the term: “Of one” (Leviticus 5:5). The Gemara asks: And what is different about the term “from one” that he learns a halakha from it?
דְּכַתְבֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְבַסּוֹף גַּבֵּי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, לְמֵימְרָא דְּכֹל דְּמִחַיַּיב בַּעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה – מִחַיַּיב בְּכוּלָּן, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּאַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּכוּלָּן, נִכְתְּבֵיהּ לְהַאי ״מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה״ בְּדַלּוּת, אִי נָמֵי בַּעֲשִׁירוּת.
The Gemara answers: The difference is that the Merciful One wrote it at the end of the passage discussing the sliding-scale offering, with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah meal-offering, to say that anyone who can become liable to bring the one-tenth of an ephah can become liable to bring any of them. As, if it enters your mind to say that one can become liable to bring one even though he cannot become liable to bring any one of them, let the Torah write this phrase: From one of these, with regard to the offering brought due to poverty, or alternatively, with regard to the offering brought by one with wealth. Since this term does not appear with regard to one of the other offerings, apparently, it is specifically with regard to the offering brought due to extreme poverty that one who cannot become liable for that offering is exempt from the entire matter.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרָה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנָן כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָן חַטָּאת – הַיָּחִיד מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה, וְהַנָּשִׂיא שָׂעִיר, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין מְבִיאִין פַּר. וּבַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ מְבִיאִין שְׂעִירָה, וּבֵית דִּין פַּר וְשָׂעִיר; פַּר לְעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר לְחַטָּאת.
MISHNA: In summation: For all mitzvot that are in the Torah for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin-offering, the individual brings a ewe or female goat for their unwitting transgression, and the king brings a male goat for their unwitting transgression, and an anointed priest and a court who issued an erroneous ruling bring a bull. And for unwittingly engaging in idol worship, the individual, and the king, and the anointed priest bring a female goat, and the court brings a bull and a goat: A bull for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering.
אָשָׁם תָּלוּי – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּיבִין, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. אָשָׁם וַדַּאי – הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
With regard to a provisional guilt-offering, the individual and the king are liable, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. With regard to a definite guilt-offering, the individual, the king, and the anointed priest are liable, and a court is exempt.
עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְעַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, וְהַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיב עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין? קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר.
For hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony, and for a false oath on an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, a court is exempt, and the individual, the king, and the anointed priest are liable. But an anointed High Priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And what offering are they liable to bring? It is a sliding-scale offering based on their financial circumstances, as delineated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:1–13). Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָיָה נוֹתֵן כְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהַיָּחִיד בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי – הַנָּשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. וְכֹל שֶׁהוּא בְּאָשָׁם וַדַּאי – נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon would posit a principle: For any case in which the individual is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, the status of the king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. And for any case in which an individual is liable to bring a definite guilt-offering, the status of a king and an anointed priest is like that of the individual, and the court is exempt.
שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, נָשִׂיא וּמָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין הַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּיב בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְלֹא מָשִׁיחַ בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. כׇּל שֶׁהוּא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד – נָשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין.
He continues: For hearing of a voice, i.e., a false oath of testimony, and for a false oath on an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, a court is exempt, and a king and an anointed priest are liable. But the king is not liable in a case of hearing of a voice, and an anointed priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. In general, for any case for which an individual is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, the status of a king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt.
הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: שֶׁאֵין מָשִׁיחַ חַיָּיב בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו – הוּא דְּפָטוּר, אֲבָל בִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם – חַיָּיב. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד – נָשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, קָתָנֵי: מָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, מָה בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין מִכּוּלְּהוֹן – אַף מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר מִכּוּלְּהוֹן.
The Gemara expresses surprise: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that an anointed priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, and by inference: It is for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that he is exempt, but he is liable for hearing of a voice and for a statement of the lips. Say the latter clause of the baraita: For any case for which an individual is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, the status of a king is like that of the individual, and an anointed priest and a court are exempt. He teaches: An anointed priest and a court are exempt; just as a court is exempt from all of the sliding-scale offerings, so too, an anointed priest is exempt from all of them, not only from the offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.
קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי!
If so, these two passages are difficult, as they contradict one another.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לָא קַשְׁיָא. כָּאן – בְּדַלּוּת, כָּאן – בְּדַלֵּי דַלּוּת. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בַּחֲדָא וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא: סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּדַלֵּי דַלּוּת דְּפָטוּר, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בְּדַלּוּת.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction between the rulings. Here, in the passage that deems the anointed priest liable in cases other than the defiling the Temple, it is in the case of an offering brought due to poverty, whereas there, in the latter clause, it is in the case of an offering brought due to extreme poverty. And Rabbi Shimon holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva with regard to one halakha and disagrees with him with regard to one other halakha. He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva in the case of extreme poverty that the anointed priest is exempt from bringing that meal-offering. And he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva in the case of poverty, as he does not hold that the anointed priest is completely exempt from bringing a sliding-scale offering.
אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָּיב כּוּ׳. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִיא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל״, מִי שֶׁקׇּרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: But an anointed High Priest is not liable for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Ḥizkiyya said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is written with regard to one who becomes ritually impure and enters the Temple: “And a man who shall be impure, and shall not be purified, that soul shall be excised [venikhreta] from the midst of the congregation, because he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord; the water of sprinkling has not been sprinkled on him: He is impure” (Numbers 19:20). It is derived from this verse that this halakha applies specifically to one whose offering equals the offering of the congregation, i.e., the Jewish people. This serves to exclude the High Priest, as his offering does not equal the offering of the congregation, as on Yom Kippur he brings a bull for his unwitting transgression, while he brings a goat to achieve atonement for the Jewish people.
אִם כֵּן, נָשִׂיא נָמֵי – אֵין קׇרְבָּנוֹ שָׁוֶה לַקָּהָל! שָׁוֶה בְּכַפָּרָה דְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. אִם כֵּן, כֹּהֲנִים נָמֵי לֹא שָׁווּ לַקָּהָל בְּכַפָּרָה דְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים! כֹּהֲנִים שָׁווּ לַקָּהָל בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּשָׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, a king too, should be exempt, as his offering does not equal the offering of the congregation, as he brings a goat. The Gemara answers: Even so, the king equals the congregation in the atonement of Yom Kippur, as his atonement is achieved by means of the same offerings through which the rest of the congregation achieves atonement. The Gemara asks: If so, priests too should be exempt from bringing the offering for the defiling of the Temple, as they do not equal the congregation in the atonement of Yom Kippur, as their atonement is achieved by means of the bull of the High Priest. The Gemara answers: Priests equal the congregation with regard to atonement for the rest of the mitzvot of the entire year.
מָשִׁיחַ נָמֵי, הָא שָׁוֶה בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת דְּשָׁנָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא הָכִי: מִי שֶׁחַטָּאתוֹ שָׁוָה לִיחִידִים, וּמַאי נִיהוּ קָהָל.
The Gemara challenges: The anointed priest, too, equals the congregation with regard to atonement for the rest of the mitzvot of the entire year. Rather, Rava said: Say this: One whose sin-offering equals that of individuals. And who are these individuals? They are the congregation. The status of a congregation that performed an unwitting transgression not on the basis of the ruling of the court is that of individuals. The High Priest’s sin-offering is different, as he brings a sin-offering only for an unwitting transgression he performed on the basis of his own ruling.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בּוֹ כְּבִקְבוּעָה.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat, and not a sliding-scale offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Eliezer stated his opinion only with regard to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, since karet is stated concerning it, as it is stated in all matters where there is liability to bring a fixed sin-offering. Just as the king brings a goat as a sin-offering for any unwitting transgression for whose intentional violation one is liable to receive karet, so too, he brings a goat for the defiling of the Temple. For other unwitting transgressions for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering and for whose intentional violation one is not liable to receive karet, the king is also liable to bring a sliding-scale offering.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עַל כּוּלְּהוֹן קָאָמַר, מִכְּדִי שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא וּפַר מָשִׁיחַ בִּמְקוֹם יָחִיד לְחַטָּאת קָאֵי. נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר בִּשְׁמִיעַת קוֹל וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם. אֶלָּא מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי מָשִׁיחַ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַטּוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו קָאֵי, דְּמָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר.
Rav Pappa said: So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind to say that Rabbi Eliezer says that the king brings a goat for all of the transgressions enumerated in the mishna, and the king brings a goat in cases where individuals bring a sliding-scale offering, then since the goat of a king and the bull of an anointed priest stand in place of liability of an individual to bring a sin-offering, let Rabbi Eliezer also teach: An anointed priest brings a bull for hearing of a voice and for an utterance of the lips. Rather, from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer does not teach this halakha with regard to an anointed priest, learn from it that his statement that the king brings a goat stands in reference only to the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, with regard to which an anointed priest is exempt, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַכּוּלְּהוֹן קָאֵי, וּבְמָשִׁיחַ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: מָשִׁיחַ פָּטוּר בְּכוּלָּן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מִי פָּטַר לֵיהּ מִפַּר? וְתוּ לָא מִידִּי.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: From where do you prove this? Perhaps the statement of Rabbi Eliezer stands in reference to all of them. And with regard to an anointed priest, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: An anointed priest is exempt from all of the cases where one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. Rav Pappa said to him: And Rabbi Akiva, does he exempt an anointed priest from bringing a bull? Rabbi Akiva exempted him only from bringing a sliding-scale offering, but he holds that the High Priest is liable to bring the offering unique to him, the bull for an unwitting transgression he performed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. And nothing more need be discussed.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בָּא עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֱמַר בּוֹ כָּרֵת כְּבִקְבוּעָה, מַיְיתֵי נָשִׂיא שָׂעִיר עָלֶיהָ. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! קַשְׁיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a king does not bring a guilt-offering for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. The tanna who recited mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall recited a baraita before Rav Sheshet: In the case of a king, a provisional guilt-offering comes for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods. Rav Sheshet said to him: Who said this to you? Is it Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Since karet is stated in its regard as it is stated in all matters where there is liability to bring a fixed sin-offering, a king brings a goat for the defiling of the Temple? Since the status of his offering is like that of a fixed sin-offering, in cases of uncertainty, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Rav Sheshet asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a king does not bring a provisional guilt-offering? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, based on the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the baraita is difficult.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָיךְ הוֹרָה כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ
מַתְנִי׳ כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ, וְכֵן נָשִׂיא שֶׁחָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִגְּדוּלָּתוֹ – כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר, וְהַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר. מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא, וְכֵן הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁעָבַר מִגְּדוּלָּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא – כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַּר, וְהַנָּשִׂיא כְּהֶדְיוֹט.
MISHNA: In the case of an anointed priest who sinned on the basis of his own erroneous halakhic ruling and thereafter moved on from his anointment, e.g., if he was disqualified due to a blemish that befell him before he brought his sin-offering, and likewise in the case of a king [nasi] who sinned and thereafter moved on from his prominence before he had brought an offering, an anointed priest brings a bull despite the fact that he is no longer the High Priest, and the king brings a goat, as he would have done during his reign. In the case of an anointed priest who moved on from his anointment and thereafter sinned, and likewise the king who moved on from his prominence and thereafter sinned, an anointed priest brings a bull, which he would have brought while he was High Priest, and the status of the king is like that of a commoner [kehedyot].
גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ,
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the formulation of the mishna: Now it can be said: An anointed priest who moved on from his anointment
