Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 11, 2018 | 讻状讜 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Horayot 11

The story of Lot and his daughters is brought up in the context of a discussion of doing things with the right intentions. Differences between the leaders in Babylonia and those in Israel are discussed. Can those leaders be considered like a “nasi” to bring the unique sacrifice?

讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 爪注讜专讬 爪注专讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 讚拽专讬讬讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讻诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 爪注讜专讬 诇讗

that one may not contend with them, but it is permitted to harass them. While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter, who called her son ben Ami, son of my people, avoiding any direct mention of the baby鈥檚 father, God said to Moses: 鈥淣either harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:19), at all. Even to harass them is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讻专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛 讝讻转讛 讜拽讚诪转讛 讗专讘注 讚讜专讜转 诇诪诇讻讜转

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person should always be first to perform a matter of a mitzva, as in reward for one night that the elder daughter preceded the younger daughter, she merited and preceded her to royalty by four generations. Ruth the Moabite, ancestor of King David, descended from her son Moab, and she preceded Naamah the Ammonite, who was married to King Solomon, by four generations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讬讞 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇谞砖讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27). The phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 serves to exclude the anointed priest; the phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 also serves to exclude the king.

讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 讬爪讗讜 诪砖讬讞 诇讬讚讜谉 讘驻专 谞砖讬讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘砖注讬专 砖讬讻讜诇 诪砖讬讞 注诇 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 注诐 砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 诪讘讬讗 驻专 注诇 砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讘讛 讜砖注讬专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讬讞 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇谞砖讬讗

The baraita continues: But weren鈥檛 these individuals already excluded from bringing a ewe or a female goat as a sin-offering, as an anointed priest is subject to atonement with a bull, and a king is subject to atonement with a male goat? Why then is an additional exclusionary derivation necessary? The baraita answers: The derivation is necessary, as one might have thought that an anointed priest brings a bull for absence of awareness of the matter together with the unwitting performance of an action, but that he brings a ewe or a female goat, as does a non-priest, for the unwitting performance of an action alone. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom among the common people,鈥 which serves to exclude the anointed priest, who is completely exempt from bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression unless it was committed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. The baraita concludes: The phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 serves to exclude the king.

转讬谞讞 诪砖讬讞 讗诇讗 谞砖讬讗 讘砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: Granted, in the case of an anointed priest it is clear why an additional exclusionary derivation is necessary. But in the case of a king, it is for the unwitting performance of an action that he brings a goat as his offering. Why then is the additional derivation necessary?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬讬转讬 讻砖讘讛 讗讜 砖注讬专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝诇 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讜 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and thereafter his transgression became known to him. It could enter your mind to say: Let him bring a ewe or a female goat because he performed the transgression before he became king. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he brings a male goat as he is now a king. The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of knowledge, and holds that one brings the offering on the basis of his status at the time when his transgression became known to him. But according to the Rabbis, who follow the time of the performance of the sin, what can be said?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞爪讟专祝 讜谞讬讬转讬 讻砖讘讛 讗讜 砖注讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and he then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and thereafter it became known to him that he had eaten forbidden fat. It could enter your mind to say: Let the two halves combine and let him bring a ewe or a female goat. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the status of a king is not like that of a commoner. Since a king brings a special offering, the half olive-bulk that he ate before becoming king does not combine with the half olive-bulk that he ate as a king.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞砖讬讗讜转 诪讛讜 砖转驻住讬拽 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜注讘专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讚讗讻诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻诇讙讗 讻砖讛讜讗 谞砖讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讻诇讬讛 诪爪讟专祝 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讗讬

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to kingship, what is the halakha? Does it interpose between two parts of a transgression and prevent them from combining? What are the circumstances? It is a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and then was removed from his position, and then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat. Perhaps it is there, in the previous case, that the two actions do not combine, as he ate half when he was a commoner and half when he was king. But here, where he ate both this half and that half when he was a commoner, they combine. Or perhaps it is no different, and once he was appointed king and his status changed, the two actions do not combine. What is the halakha?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讛诪讬专 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 诪讜诪专 诇讗讜 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for his unwitting sin, and he became an apostate, and then retracted his apostasy, since he was disqualified from bringing the offering as an apostate he shall remain disqualified from bringing an offering for that sin. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? An apostate is ineligible as far as bringing an offering of any kind is concerned; this king is eligible with regard to bringing an offering, albeit of a different type.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 住驻拽讜 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讬 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one ate meat when he was a commoner, and there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and subsequently he was appointed king and his uncertainty became known to him, what is the halakha? According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who follow the time of the actual transgression, do not raise the dilemma, as in their opinion, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Rather, when you raise the dilemma it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of awareness of the transgression.

诪讚讗砖转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讗砖转谞讬 诇住驻拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗砖转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讚讗砖转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 转讬拽讜

Is the halakha that from the fact that his status changed with regard to a definite transgression, as, if he was liable to bring a sin-offering and his sin became known to him after his coronation, he is completely exempt, it may be derived that his status changed with regard to an uncertain transgression as well, and he is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt-offering? Or perhaps when his status changed, it was with regard to a definite transgression only, as in that case his offering changed, since a king brings a goat as a sin-offering instead of a ewe or a female goat. But here, in the case of an uncertain transgression, as his offering does not change, say: Let him bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents for that sin, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 诇讗 砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon bar Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: 鈥淚f any one of the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty; or if his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:27鈥28). From the words 鈥渂e known to him鈥 it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., who would not have sinned had he known that the act was forbidden, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression and achieves atonement in this way. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would sin even after becoming aware that the act is forbidden, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜诪专 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诇讚诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讚诐 诪讬讛讗 砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether the halakha is derived from the earlier or later verse? Rav Hamnuna said: The difference between them is in the case of an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat; they disagree as to whether or not he brings an offering for unwittingly consuming blood. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he is an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat, he is also considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: With regard to consuming blood, in any event, he is one who repents due to his awareness, as he is not considered an apostate with regard to blood.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚诐 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇转讗讘讜谉 讜谞转讞诇祝 诇讜 讘砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇转讗讘讜谉 讗讻讬诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava say that everyone agrees that an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat is not considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood? The Gemara answers: Rather, here it is with regard to a person who eats forbidden fat and an animal carcass due to appetite, e.g., only when he does not have access to kosher meat. And forbidden fat became confused for that person with permitted fat and he ate the forbidden fat. It is in that case that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he intentionally eats forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: Since if he finds food that is permitted he does not eat food that is prohibited, as he merely seeks to satiate his appetite, he is not an apostate.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇讜讘砖 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 诪专 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

The Sages taught: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses or animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses, etc. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Why, after answering the question, does the tanna ask who is an apostate and then provide a different answer?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诇转讗讘讜谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讛讻注讬住 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讚讘住转诪讜 诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讟专讬驻讛 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇讜讘砖 讻诇讗讬诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is what he is saying: If one ate forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. If he ate it to express insolence, this person is a heretic. And which is the apostate who is a presumptive heretic merely on the basis of his actions? You must say that it is one who eats an animal carcass or a tereifa, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Based on the fact that he violates serious transgressions for which one has no appetite such as repugnant creatures or creeping animals, it is clear that he is a heretic who denies the Torah in its entirety. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 诪专 住讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻专住诐 讗住讜专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in the case of one who wears a garment of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen prohibited by rabbinic law. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: One who violates a prohibition by Torah law is an apostate; one who violates a prohibition by rabbinic law is not an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds: With regard to diverse kinds, since his violation of the prohibition is well known, as people see that he is wearing that garment, even though he violates a prohibition by rabbinic law, he is an apostate.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇转讗讘讜谉 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讛讻注讬住 诪讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讛讻注讬住 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讬谉 讻诇 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讻诇 驻专注讜砖 讗讞讚 讗讜 讬转讜砖 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讻注讬住 讛讜讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诪讚 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 讗讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: If one violated a prohibition due to appetite or convenience he is an apostate, while one who eats to express insolence is a heretic. And one said: One who violates a prohibition to express insolence is also an apostate. Rather, who is a heretic? It is anyone who engages in idol worship. The Gemara raises an objection to the first opinion from a baraita: If a person ate one flea or one mosquito, this person is an apostate. But here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it is a violation performed to express insolence, as one has no desire to eat these insects, and yet the tanna calls him an apostate? The Gemara answers: The reference there, in that baraita, is to the case of one who eats the flea due to appetite, as he says: I shall taste the flavor of prohibition. He seeks to eat a food that he has never eaten before.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 谞砖讬讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讬讗 讬讻讜诇 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 讻谞讞砖讜谉 讘谉 注诪讬谞讚讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讬诇诪讚 诇讬专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥nasi.鈥 One might have thought that the reference is to the prince of a tribe, like Na岣hon, son of Amminadab. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd performed any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God.鈥 Later, in the passage with regard to the king, the verse states: 鈥淭hat he may learn to fear the Lord his God鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:19).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讗祝 谞砖讬讗 砖讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜

Just as there, in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God, so too, with regard to a nasi, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讘砖注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 爪专转讱 讘讘讘诇 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇注爪诪诐 讜讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇注爪诪诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讻讬讬驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讻讗 讗谞谉 讻讬讬驻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Your rival, the Exilarch in Babylonia, is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to Rabbi 岣yya from a baraita: If kings of the kingdom of Israel and kings of the house of David perform an unwitting transgression, these bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings, and those bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There, the kings were not subject to each other鈥檚 authority. Here, in Eretz Yisrael, we are subject to their authority, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the Nasi.

专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讘砖注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖讘讟 讛讻讗 诪讞讜拽拽 讜转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬住讜专 砖讘讟 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 专讗砖 讙讜诇讛 砖讘讘讘诇 砖专讜讚讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪拽诇 讜诪讞讜拽拽 诪讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 砖诪诇诪讚讬诐 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬诐

Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah鈥 (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. 鈥淣or the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet鈥 (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛诪砖讬讞 讛诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇讗 讛诪专讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讛诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

MISHNA: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot.

讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

And the difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬诐 讘注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜诪爪讜讜讬诐 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘拽专讜讘讬讛诐 讜诇讗 驻讜专注讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讜专诪讬诐 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛专讜爪讞

Both this High Priest currently serving and that former High Priest are equal with regard to performing the rest of the Yom Kippur service, and they are both commanded with regard to marrying a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13), and it is prohibited for both to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and they may not render themselves impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of their relatives dies (see Leviticus 21:11), and they may not grow their hair long and they may not rend their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25).

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 讛讬讜 砖讜诇拽讬诐 讘讜 讗转 讛注讬拽专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 诇住讜讱 讗转 讛注拽专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻拽 讗诇讗 砖讜专讬谉 讗转 讛注拽专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诪爪讬祝 注诇讬讜 砖诪谉 讜拽讜诇讟 讗转 讛专讬讞 讜拽驻讞讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: To blend the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil in the oil the roots of the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn鈥檛 that amount of oil insufficient even to smear on the roots of those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? Rather, they soak the roots in water. Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises and they float oil on the water and the oil absorbs the fragrance. And at that point, one removed the oil [vekippe岣] from the water, and that was the anointing oil.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 谞住 讗讞讚 谞注砖讛 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讛诇讗 转讞诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪诪谞讜 讛讬讛 谞诪砖讞 诪砖讻谉 讜讻诇讬讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪谉 诪砖讞转 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讝讛 诇讬 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn鈥檛 it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: 鈥淭his shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讬诪砖讞 [讗转] 讛诪砖讻谉 [讜讗转] 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 讻诪讛 谞住讬诐 谞注砖讜 讘讜 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 转讞诇转讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 专讗讛 讻诪讛 讬讜专讛 讘讜诇注转 讜讻诪讛 注拽专讬诐 讘讜诇注讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讛讗讜专 砖讜专祝 讜讘讜 谞诪砖讞 诪砖讻谉 讜讻诇讬讜 讜讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜讘讜 谞诪砖讞讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诪诇讻讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them鈥 (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, how many miracles were performed in its regard continuously, from beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve log. Consider how much oil a pot absorbs, and how much oil is absorbed by the roots, and how much oil the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed with it for the entire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讞讬诐 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪砖讞讜 讗转 砖诇诪讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讗讚讜谞讬讛 讜讗转 讬讜讗砖 诪驻谞讬 注转诇讬讛 讜讗转 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诪驻谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讜转讜 砖诪谉 拽讬讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪谉 诪砖讞转 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讝讛 诇讬 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讝讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 讛讜讜

Apropos the anointing oil, the baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I聽Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II聽Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II聽Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: 鈥淭his [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讛讻讛谉 诪转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬 讛诪砖讬讞 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讘谞讬讜 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 讛讜讬 诪砖讬讞 讛讜讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons鈥 (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say only: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is the reason that it says: 鈥淭he anointed priest鈥? The Torah teaches us that even from among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointed with oil he is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讞讬谉 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 注诇 诪诪诇讻转讜 讜讙讜壮 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 讜诪谞诇谉 讚讻讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讬 诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讘注讬 诪诇讻讗 诪讜专讬转 诪诇讻讜转讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讘拽专讘 讬砖专讗诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖诇讜诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 诪砖讬讞讛

The Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淪o that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom is an inheritance for you. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that when there is a dispute with regard to succession, the king requires anointing, and it is not that whenever the king wishes he can bequeath the kingdom to his son without anointing him? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: 鈥淗e and his sons, in the midst of Israel.鈥 When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: 鈥淗e and his sons,鈥 even without anointing; but when there is dispute, anointing is required.

转谞讗 讗祝 讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 诇讗 谞诪砖讞 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 诪砖讜讞讬谉 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讜讞讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讜诐 诪砖讞讛讜 讻讬 讝讛 讜讙讜壮 讝讛 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛

It is taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram (see II聽Kings 9:1鈥14). The Sages challenge: And let him derive that Jehu was anointed due to the fact that he was the first of his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淎rise, anoint him, for this is he鈥 (I聽Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: This king, David, requires anointing, but another king does not require anointing.

讗诪专 诪专 讗祝 讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 诇讗 谞诪砖讞 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讘谉 讗讞讗讘 谞诪注讜诇 讘砖诪谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗驻专住诪讗 讚讻讬讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讗驻专住诪讗 讚讻讬讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oil and anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is like that which Rav Pappa said in another context: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. So too, with regard to Jehu, they anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.

讜讗转 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诪驻谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讬 拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讘谞讬 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讛讘讻讜专 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛专讘讬注讬 砖诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 拽砖讬砖 讜诪讗讬 讘讻讜专 讘讻讜专 诇诪诇讻讜转

The baraita teaches: And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim older than Jehoahaz? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum鈥 (I聽Chronicles 3:15), and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; these are two names for one person. Likewise, he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz, who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz. And what is the meaning of the term 鈥渇irstborn鈥 written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of a firstborn in terms of ascent to the kingship.

讜诪讬 诪诇讻讬 讝讜讟专讬 诪拽诪讬 拽砖讬砖讬 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛诪诪诇讻讛 谞转谉 诇讬讛讜专诐 讻讬 讛讜讗 讛讘讻讜专 讬讛讜专诐 诪诪诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讛讜讛 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 诇讗讜 诪诪诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And do younger sons rule before elder sons? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn鈥 (II聽Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: Jehoram was a surrogate for his ancestors as he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. Jehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors; he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讛讜讗讞讝 讜讛讗 讞讚 讞讚 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讛专讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬注讬 专讘讬注讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讗讞讝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讻谞讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讚拽讬讛讜

The Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the verse enumerate them individually, as it is written: 鈥淭he third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,鈥 indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of third? It means the third among the sons. And what is the meaning of fourth? It means the fourth to ascend to the kingship. How so? Initially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately, after him, Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Zedekiah, who was fourth to the kingship.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 砖诇讜诐 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讜诇诐 讘诪注砖讬讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖诇讜诐 砖砖诇诪讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讘讬诪讬讜 讜诪讛 砖诪讜 诪转谞讬讛 砖诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诪诇讱 诪诇讱 讘讘诇 讗转 诪转谞讬讛 讚讜讚讜 转讞转讬讜 讜讬住讘 讗转 砖诪讜 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛 讬爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讱 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 转诪专讜讚 讘讬 (砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘讗讛讜 讘讘诇讛) 讜讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 讘诪诇讱 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪专讚 讗砖专 讛砖讘讬注讜 讘讗诇讛讬诐

The Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum? It is due to the fact that he was perfect [meshullam] is his actions. Some say: He was called Shallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [sheshalema] during his days. And what was his actual name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah鈥 (II聽Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? He said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: 鈥淎nd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God鈥 (II聽Chronicles 36:13).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Horayot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Horayot 11

讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 爪注讜专讬 爪注专讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬诇讜 爪注讬专讛 讚拽专讬讬讛 讘谉 注诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诇 转爪专诐 讜讗诇 转转讙专 讘诐 讻诇诇 讗驻讬诇讜 爪注讜专讬 诇讗

that one may not contend with them, but it is permitted to harass them. While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter, who called her son ben Ami, son of my people, avoiding any direct mention of the baby鈥檚 father, God said to Moses: 鈥淣either harass them, nor contend with them鈥 (Deuteronomy 2:19), at all. Even to harass them is not permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 诇注讜诇诐 讬拽讚讬诐 讗讚诐 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 砖讘砖讻专 诇讬诇讛 讗讞转 砖拽讚诪讛 讘讻讬专讛 诇爪注讬专讛 讝讻转讛 讜拽讚诪转讛 讗专讘注 讚讜专讜转 诇诪诇讻讜转

Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: A person should always be first to perform a matter of a mitzva, as in reward for one night that the elder daughter preceded the younger daughter, she merited and preceded her to royalty by four generations. Ruth the Moabite, ancestor of King David, descended from her son Moab, and she preceded Naamah the Ammonite, who was married to King Solomon, by four generations.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讬讞 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇谞砖讬讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27). The phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 serves to exclude the anointed priest; the phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 also serves to exclude the king.

讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 讬爪讗讜 诪砖讬讞 诇讬讚讜谉 讘驻专 谞砖讬讗 诇讬讚讜谉 讘砖注讬专 砖讬讻讜诇 诪砖讬讞 注诇 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 注诐 砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 诪讘讬讗 驻专 注诇 砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讘讛 讜砖注讬专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讬讞 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇谞砖讬讗

The baraita continues: But weren鈥檛 these individuals already excluded from bringing a ewe or a female goat as a sin-offering, as an anointed priest is subject to atonement with a bull, and a king is subject to atonement with a male goat? Why then is an additional exclusionary derivation necessary? The baraita answers: The derivation is necessary, as one might have thought that an anointed priest brings a bull for absence of awareness of the matter together with the unwitting performance of an action, but that he brings a ewe or a female goat, as does a non-priest, for the unwitting performance of an action alone. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淔rom among the common people,鈥 which serves to exclude the anointed priest, who is completely exempt from bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression unless it was committed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. The baraita concludes: The phrase 鈥渇rom among the common people鈥 serves to exclude the king.

转讬谞讞 诪砖讬讞 讗诇讗 谞砖讬讗 讘砖讙讙转 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讬讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: Granted, in the case of an anointed priest it is clear why an additional exclusionary derivation is necessary. But in the case of a king, it is for the unwitting performance of an action that he brings a goat as his offering. Why then is the additional derivation necessary?

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬讬转讬 讻砖讘讛 讗讜 砖注讬专讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讝诇 讘转专 讬讚讬注讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讜 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and thereafter his transgression became known to him. It could enter your mind to say: Let him bring a ewe or a female goat because he performed the transgression before he became king. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he brings a male goat as he is now a king. The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of knowledge, and holds that one brings the offering on the basis of his status at the time when his transgression became known to him. But according to the Rabbis, who follow the time of the performance of the sin, what can be said?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞爪讟专祝 讜谞讬讬转讬 讻砖讘讛 讗讜 砖注讬专讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rather, Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and he then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and thereafter it became known to him that he had eaten forbidden fat. It could enter your mind to say: Let the two halves combine and let him bring a ewe or a female goat. Therefore, the verse teaches us that the status of a king is not like that of a commoner. Since a king brings a special offering, the half olive-bulk that he ate before becoming king does not combine with the half olive-bulk that he ate as a king.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞砖讬讗讜转 诪讛讜 砖转驻住讬拽 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜注讘专 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讟专祝 讚讗讻诇讬讛 驻诇讙讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜驻诇讙讗 讻砖讛讜讗 谞砖讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讻诇讬讛 诪爪讟专祝 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讗讬

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: With regard to kingship, what is the halakha? Does it interpose between two parts of a transgression and prevent them from combining? What are the circumstances? It is a case where one unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat when he was a commoner, and he was then appointed king, and then was removed from his position, and then finished eating the olive-bulk of forbidden fat. Perhaps it is there, in the previous case, that the two actions do not combine, as he ate half when he was a commoner and half when he was king. But here, where he ate both this half and that half when he was a commoner, they combine. Or perhaps it is no different, and once he was appointed king and his status changed, the two actions do not combine. What is the halakha?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讛诪讬专 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 诪讜诪专 诇讗讜 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 讘专 讗转讜讬讬 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Resolve the dilemma from that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for his unwitting sin, and he became an apostate, and then retracted his apostasy, since he was disqualified from bringing the offering as an apostate he shall remain disqualified from bringing an offering for that sin. The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? An apostate is ineligible as far as bringing an offering of any kind is concerned; this king is eligible with regard to bringing an offering, albeit of a different type.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讻砖讛讜讗 讛讚讬讜讟 讜谞转诪谞讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 住驻拽讜 诪讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗讝诇讬 讘转专 讞讟讗讛 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: If one ate meat when he was a commoner, and there was uncertainty as to whether or not it was forbidden fat, and subsequently he was appointed king and his uncertainty became known to him, what is the halakha? According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who follow the time of the actual transgression, do not raise the dilemma, as in their opinion, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. Rather, when you raise the dilemma it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who follows the time of awareness of the transgression.

诪讚讗砖转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讗砖转谞讬 诇住驻拽 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬 讗砖转谞讬 诇讜讚讗讬 讚讗砖转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转谞讬 拽专讘谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 转讬拽讜

Is the halakha that from the fact that his status changed with regard to a definite transgression, as, if he was liable to bring a sin-offering and his sin became known to him after his coronation, he is completely exempt, it may be derived that his status changed with regard to an uncertain transgression as well, and he is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt-offering? Or perhaps when his status changed, it was with regard to a definite transgression only, as in that case his offering changed, since a king brings a goat as a sin-offering instead of a ewe or a female goat. But here, in the case of an uncertain transgression, as his offering does not change, say: Let him bring a provisional guilt-offering. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诐 讛讗专抓 驻专讟 诇诪砖讜诪讚

The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if one soul from among the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27). This serves to exclude an apostate. When an apostate sins unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring a sin-offering even if he repents for that sin, as even his unwitting action is considered intentional.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗砖专 诇讗 转注砖讬谞讛 讘砖讙讙讛 讜讗砖诐 讛砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 诇讗 砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 砖讙讙转讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon bar Yosei says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: It is unnecessary to derive this halakha from that phrase, as it says in the same verse: 鈥淚f any one of the common people sins unwittingly in performing one of the mitzvot of God that may not be done and he is guilty; or if his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:27鈥28). From the words 鈥渂e known to him鈥 it is inferred that only one who repents due to his awareness, i.e., who would not have sinned had he known that the act was forbidden, brings an offering for his unwitting transgression and achieves atonement in this way. But one who does not repent due to his awareness that he sinned, e.g., an apostate, who would sin even after becoming aware that the act is forbidden, does not bring an offering for his unwitting action.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛诪谞讜谞讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 讜诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讚诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讜诪专 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诇讚诐 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讚诐 诪讬讛讗 砖讘 讘讬讚讬注转讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon concerning whether the halakha is derived from the earlier or later verse? Rav Hamnuna said: The difference between them is in the case of an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat; they disagree as to whether or not he brings an offering for unwittingly consuming blood. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he is an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat, he is also considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: With regard to consuming blood, in any event, he is one who repents due to his awareness, as he is not considered an apostate with regard to blood.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讗讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讚诐 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 诇转讗讘讜谉 讜谞转讞诇祝 诇讜 讘砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇转讗讘讜谉 讗讻讬诇 讘诪讝讬讚 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讗砖讻讞 讚讛讬转专讗 诇讗 讗讻诇 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rava say that everyone agrees that an apostate with regard to eating forbidden fat is not considered an apostate with regard to consuming blood? The Gemara answers: Rather, here it is with regard to a person who eats forbidden fat and an animal carcass due to appetite, e.g., only when he does not have access to kosher meat. And forbidden fat became confused for that person with permitted fat and he ate the forbidden fat. It is in that case that the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Since he intentionally eats forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds: Since if he finds food that is permitted he does not eat food that is prohibited, as he merely seeks to satiate his appetite, he is not an apostate.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讗讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇讜讘砖 讻诇讗讬诐 讗诪专 诪专 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专

The Sages taught: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses or animals with wounds that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Rabbi Yehuda says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen. The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One who ate forbidden fat is an apostate. And who is an apostate? It is one who ate animal carcasses, etc. The Gemara asks: What is he saying? Why, after answering the question, does the tanna ask who is an apostate and then provide a different answer?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诇转讗讘讜谉 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讛讻注讬住 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讬谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 诪砖讜诪讚 讚讘住转诪讜 诪讬谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讛 讜讟专讬驻讛 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诇讜讘砖 讻诇讗讬诐

Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is what he is saying: If one ate forbidden fat due to appetite, he is an apostate. If he ate it to express insolence, this person is a heretic. And which is the apostate who is a presumptive heretic merely on the basis of his actions? You must say that it is one who eats an animal carcass or a tereifa, repugnant creatures or creeping animals, and one who drank wine used for a libation in idol worship. Based on the fact that he violates serious transgressions for which one has no appetite such as repugnant creatures or creeping animals, it is clear that he is a heretic who denies the Torah in its entirety. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: This applies even to one who wears garments fashioned of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻诇讗讬诐 讚专讘谞谉 诪专 住讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诇讗讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诪驻专住诐 讗住讜专讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诪讚

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in the case of one who wears a garment of diverse kinds, containing wool and linen prohibited by rabbinic law. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds: One who violates a prohibition by Torah law is an apostate; one who violates a prohibition by rabbinic law is not an apostate. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds: With regard to diverse kinds, since his violation of the prohibition is well known, as people see that he is wearing that garment, even though he violates a prohibition by rabbinic law, he is an apostate.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜专讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诇转讗讘讜谉 诪砖讜诪讚 诇讛讻注讬住 诪讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 诇讛讻注讬住 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诪讚 讗诇讗 讗讬讝讛讜 诪讬谉 讻诇 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讻诇 驻专注讜砖 讗讞讚 讗讜 讬转讜砖 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖讜诪讚 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讛讻注讬住 讛讜讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诪讚 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 讗讟注讜诐 讟注诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗

Rav A岣 and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: If one violated a prohibition due to appetite or convenience he is an apostate, while one who eats to express insolence is a heretic. And one said: One who violates a prohibition to express insolence is also an apostate. Rather, who is a heretic? It is anyone who engages in idol worship. The Gemara raises an objection to the first opinion from a baraita: If a person ate one flea or one mosquito, this person is an apostate. But here, isn鈥檛 it a case where it is a violation performed to express insolence, as one has no desire to eat these insects, and yet the tanna calls him an apostate? The Gemara answers: The reference there, in that baraita, is to the case of one who eats the flea due to appetite, as he says: I shall taste the flavor of prohibition. He seeks to eat a food that he has never eaten before.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 谞砖讬讗 讝讛 诪诇讱 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞砖讬讗 讬讻讜诇 谞砖讬讗 砖讘讟 讻谞讞砖讜谉 讘谉 注诪讬谞讚讘 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇诪注谉 讬诇诪讚 诇讬专讗讛 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: 鈥淲hen a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥nasi.鈥 One might have thought that the reference is to the prince of a tribe, like Na岣hon, son of Amminadab. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd performed any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God.鈥 Later, in the passage with regard to the king, the verse states: 鈥淭hat he may learn to fear the Lord his God鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:19).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讗祝 谞砖讬讗 砖讗讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬讜 讗诇讗 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜

Just as there, in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God, so too, with regard to a nasi, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讘砖注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 爪专转讱 讘讘讘诇 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇注爪诪诐 讜讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诇注爪诪诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讻讬讬驻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讻讗 讗谞谉 讻讬讬驻讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讛讜

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: Your rival, the Exilarch in Babylonia, is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to Rabbi 岣yya from a baraita: If kings of the kingdom of Israel and kings of the house of David perform an unwitting transgression, these bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings, and those bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi 岣yya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There, the kings were not subject to each other鈥檚 authority. Here, in Eretz Yisrael, we are subject to their authority, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the Nasi.

专讘 住驻专讗 诪转谞讬 讛讻讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讙讜谉 讗谞讬 诪讛讜 讘砖注讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 砖讘讟 讛讻讗 诪讞讜拽拽 讜转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬住讜专 砖讘讟 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讝讛 专讗砖 讙讜诇讛 砖讘讘讘诇 砖专讜讚讛 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪拽诇 讜诪讞讜拽拽 诪讘讬谉 专讙诇讬讜 讗诇讜 讘谞讬 讘谞讬讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 砖诪诇诪讚讬诐 转讜专讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘专讘讬诐

Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi 岣yya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淭he scepter shall not depart from Judah鈥 (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. 鈥淣or the ruler鈥檚 staff from between his feet鈥 (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛诪砖讬讞 讛诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇讗 讛诪专讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 讛诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

MISHNA: And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot.

讜讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

And the difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬诐 讘注讘讜讚转 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜诪爪讜讜讬诐 注诇 讛讘转讜诇讛 讜讗住讜专讬诐 注诇 讛讗诇诪谞讛 讜讗讬谞诐 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘拽专讜讘讬讛诐 讜诇讗 驻讜专注讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讜专诪讬诐 讜诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讛专讜爪讞

Both this High Priest currently serving and that former High Priest are equal with regard to performing the rest of the Yom Kippur service, and they are both commanded with regard to marrying a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13), and it is prohibited for both to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and they may not render themselves impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of their relatives dies (see Leviticus 21:11), and they may not grow their hair long and they may not rend their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25).

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 讛讬讜 砖讜诇拽讬诐 讘讜 讗转 讛注讬拽专讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 诇住讜讱 讗转 讛注拽专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 住讜驻拽 讗诇讗 砖讜专讬谉 讗转 讛注拽专讬诐 讘诪讬诐 讜诪爪讬祝 注诇讬讜 砖诪谉 讜拽讜诇讟 讗转 讛专讬讞 讜拽驻讞讜

GEMARA: The Sages taught: To blend the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil in the oil the roots of the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn鈥檛 that amount of oil insufficient even to smear on the roots of those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? Rather, they soak the roots in water. Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises and they float oil on the water and the oil absorbs the fragrance. And at that point, one removed the oil [vekippe岣] from the water, and that was the anointing oil.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讬 谞住 讗讞讚 谞注砖讛 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讛诇讗 转讞诇转讜 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪诪谞讜 讛讬讛 谞诪砖讞 诪砖讻谉 讜讻诇讬讜 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜讻讜诇讜 拽讬讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪谉 诪砖讞转 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讝讛 诇讬 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn鈥檛 it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: 鈥淭his shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讬诪砖讞 [讗转] 讛诪砖讻谉 [讜讗转] 讻诇 讗砖专 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注砖讛 诪砖讛 讘诪讚讘专 讻诪讛 谞住讬诐 谞注砖讜 讘讜 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 转讞诇转讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 专讗讛 讻诪讛 讬讜专讛 讘讜诇注转 讜讻诪讛 注拽专讬诐 讘讜诇注讬诐 讜讻诪讛 讛讗讜专 砖讜专祝 讜讘讜 谞诪砖讞 诪砖讻谉 讜讻诇讬讜 讜讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻诇 砖讘注转 讬诪讬 讛诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜讘讜 谞诪砖讞讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜诪诇讻讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: 鈥淎nd Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them鈥 (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, how many miracles were performed in its regard continuously, from beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve log. Consider how much oil a pot absorbs, and how much oil is absorbed by the roots, and how much oil the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed with it for the entire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讞讬诐 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讜讗诐 转讗诪专 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪砖讞讜 讗转 砖诇诪讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讗讚讜谞讬讛 讜讗转 讬讜讗砖 诪驻谞讬 注转诇讬讛 讜讗转 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诪驻谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讜转讜 砖诪谉 拽讬讬诐 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讜讗 砖谞讗诪专 砖诪谉 诪砖讞转 拽讚砖 讬讛讬讛 讝讛 诇讬 诇讚讜专讜转讬讻诐 讝讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 诇讜讙讬谉 讛讜讜

Apropos the anointing oil, the baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I聽Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II聽Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II聽Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: 鈥淭his [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations鈥 (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讘谉 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讻讛谉 讛诪砖讬讞 转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 谞讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讛讻讛谉 诪转讞转讬讜 诪讘谞讬讜 诪讗讬 讛诪砖讬讞 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讘谞讬讜 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬 讛讜讬 诪砖讬讞 讛讜讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇

搂 The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons鈥 (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say only: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is the reason that it says: 鈥淭he anointed priest鈥? The Torah teaches us that even from among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointed with oil he is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest.

讗诪专 诪专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讞讬谉 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 讬讗专讬讱 讬诪讬诐 注诇 诪诪诇讻转讜 讜讙讜壮 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讻诐 讜诪谞诇谉 讚讻讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘注讬 诪砖讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讘注讬 诪诇讻讗 诪讜专讬转 诪诇讻讜转讗 诇讘谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讘拽专讘 讬砖专讗诇 讘讝诪谉 砖砖诇讜诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讗 诪砖讬讞讛

The Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淪o that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom is an inheritance for you. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that when there is a dispute with regard to succession, the king requires anointing, and it is not that whenever the king wishes he can bequeath the kingdom to his son without anointing him? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: 鈥淗e and his sons, in the midst of Israel.鈥 When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: 鈥淗e and his sons,鈥 even without anointing; but when there is dispute, anointing is required.

转谞讗 讗祝 讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 诇讗 谞诪砖讞 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讗砖讜谉 讛讜讗 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪诇讻讬 讘讬转 讚讜讚 诪砖讜讞讬谉 诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讜讞讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽讜诐 诪砖讞讛讜 讻讬 讝讛 讜讙讜壮 讝讛 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 诪砖讬讞讛

It is taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram (see II聽Kings 9:1鈥14). The Sages challenge: And let him derive that Jehu was anointed due to the fact that he was the first of his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that the verse states: 鈥淎rise, anoint him, for this is he鈥 (I聽Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: This king, David, requires anointing, but another king does not require anointing.

讗诪专 诪专 讗祝 讬讛讜讗 讘谉 谞诪砖讬 诇讗 谞诪砖讞 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讜诪砖讜诐 诪讞诇讜拽转讜 砖诇 讬讜专诐 讘谉 讗讞讗讘 谞诪注讜诇 讘砖诪谉 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讗驻专住诪讗 讚讻讬讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讗驻专住诪讗 讚讻讬讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oil and anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is like that which Rav Pappa said in another context: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. So too, with regard to Jehu, they anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.

讜讗转 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诪驻谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 砖讛讬讛 讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诪讬 拽砖讬砖 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讘谞讬 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讛讘讻讜专 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖谞讬 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛专讘讬注讬 砖诇讜诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讛讜讗讞讝 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 拽砖讬砖 讜诪讗讬 讘讻讜专 讘讻讜专 诇诪诇讻讜转

The baraita teaches: And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim older than Jehoahaz? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum鈥 (I聽Chronicles 3:15), and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; these are two names for one person. Likewise, he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz, who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz. And what is the meaning of the term 鈥渇irstborn鈥 written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of a firstborn in terms of ascent to the kingship.

讜诪讬 诪诇讻讬 讝讜讟专讬 诪拽诪讬 拽砖讬砖讬 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讛诪诪诇讻讛 谞转谉 诇讬讛讜专诐 讻讬 讛讜讗 讛讘讻讜专 讬讛讜专诐 诪诪诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讛讜讛 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 诇讗讜 诪诪诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转讬讜 讛讜讛

The Gemara asks: And do younger sons rule before elder sons? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn鈥 (II聽Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: Jehoram was a surrogate for his ancestors as he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. Jehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors; he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him.

讗诪专 诪专 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讬讛讜讗讞讝 讜讛讗 讞讚 讞讚 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 讚讻转讬讘 讛砖诇讬砖讬 讛专讘讬注讬 诪讗讬 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讜诪讗讬 专讘讬注讬 专讘讬注讬 诇诪诇讻讜转 讚诪注讬拽专讗 诪诇讱 讬讛讜讗讞讝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讛讜讬拽讬诐 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬讻谞讬讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 爪讚拽讬讛讜

The Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the verse enumerate them individually, as it is written: 鈥淭he third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,鈥 indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of third? It means the third among the sons. And what is the meaning of fourth? It means the fourth to ascend to the kingship. How so? Initially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately, after him, Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Zedekiah, who was fourth to the kingship.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 砖诇讜诐 讛讜讗 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 砖诇讜诐 砖讛讬讛 诪砖讜诇诐 讘诪注砖讬讜 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖诇讜诐 砖砖诇诪讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讘讬诪讬讜 讜诪讛 砖诪讜 诪转谞讬讛 砖诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬诪诇讱 诪诇讱 讘讘诇 讗转 诪转谞讬讛 讚讜讚讜 转讞转讬讜 讜讬住讘 讗转 砖诪讜 爪讚拽讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讛 讬爪讚讬拽 注诇讬讱 讗转 讛讚讬谉 讗诐 转诪专讜讚 讘讬 (砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讘讗讛讜 讘讘诇讛) 讜讻转讬讘 讜讙诐 讘诪诇讱 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 诪专讚 讗砖专 讛砖讘讬注讜 讘讗诇讛讬诐

The Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum? It is due to the fact that he was perfect [meshullam] is his actions. Some say: He was called Shallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [sheshalema] during his days. And what was his actual name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah鈥 (II聽Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? He said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: 鈥淎nd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God鈥 (II聽Chronicles 36:13).

Scroll To Top