Horayot 9
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
There are several differing opinions regarding whether a king and a kohen gadol are obligated to bring a sliding scale offering (korban oleh v’yored) for certain transgressions. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili holds that both are exempt, since they can never become poor—a condition necessary for this type of offering. Rabbi Akiva, however, obligates the king in all cases except for withholding testimony, as a king is not permitted to testify. He exempts the kohen gadol entirely, based on a drasha derived from the unique meal offering of the kohen gadol (minchat chavitin).
Ravina raises a question about a king who contracts leprosy and is no longer considered a king: would he then be obligated to bring a sliding scale offering?
The Mishna then summarizes which sacrifices are brought by various individuals—the kohen gadol, the king, a regular individual, and the court—for both standard sin offerings and those related to idolatry (avodah zarah). It also outlines who is obligated in provisional guilt offerings (asham talui), standard guilt offerings (asham vadai), and sliding scale offerings. Two additional opinions on sliding scale offerings appear here. Rabbi Shimon states that the king is obligated in all cases except testimony, while the kohen gadol is obligated in all cases except impurity in the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king is obligated, but instead of a sliding scale offering, he brings a goat.
A braita is cited to expand on Rabbi Shimon’s position. Although it contains an internal contradiction, this is resolved. Chizkia explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning for exempting the kohen gadol from bringing a sacrifice for impurity in the Temple: the kohen gadol has a unique Yom Kippur offering and does not receive atonement through the communal sacrifice that covers the rest of the nation. This sets him apart and excludes him from the verse regarding the punishment for entering the Temple in a state of impurity.
There is a discussion about Rabbi Eliezer’s view—specifically, whether the king’s obligation to bring a goat applies only to impurity in the Temple or to all transgressions that would normally require a sliding scale offering.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark and Rena Goldstein for refuah shleima of Ben Ezra Septee ben Rena and Aliza Margalit bat Shaina Raya.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Ruth and David Kahan in honor of Dr. Jody Dushay and Prof. Paul Gompers. “In gratitude for the ongoing and incredibly gracious hospitality!”
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
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 44: Pigul, Clarified
Zevahim 43: Flour and Frankinscense
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 42: Again, Bloodwork
Zevahim 41: God Loves the Jewish People
Zevahim 40: The Curtains and the Incense
Zevahim 39: Blood on the Inner Altar
Zevahim 38: When Beit Hillel Turns Stringent and Beit Shammai Lenient
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
Zevachim Daf 22-29 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 36: Invalid Offerings
Zevahim 35: A Fetus, Eggs, and the Separation of Animals
Zevahim 34: Pouring and Disposing of the Dregs
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.
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
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
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
New York, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Horayot 9
Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ. ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ,
βAnd if his means suffice notβ (Leviticus 5:7), and it is stated: βAnd if his means not sufficeβ (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.
Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΧ³ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧ³ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ·, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ¨. ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ? ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ¦Φ·Χ§ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧ.
The king cannot become poor, as it is written concerning him: βAnd he performed one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his Godβ (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: βAnd the priest that is greatest among his brethrenβ (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: βAnd the priest that is greatest among his brethren upon whose head the anointing oil is pouredβ (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.
ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§: Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ’, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ?
Ravina raised a dilemma before Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak: 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 NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak 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.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧΧ΄. ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ.
Β§ 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: βThis 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-offeringβ (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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ? Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²Χ Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΦΆΧΧ΄. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ β ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
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: βAnd the priest shall atone for him for his sin that he has committed from one of theseβ (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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ β ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, and the verse is interpreted in that manner, then that which is written there: βAnd it shall be when he shall be guilty of one of these mattersβ (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?
ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
Abaye and Rava both say to resolve this difficulty: Rabbi Akiva learns this inference from the term: βFrom oneβ (Leviticus 5:13). He does not learn anything from the term: βOf oneβ (Leviticus 5:5). The Gemara asks: And what is different about the term βfrom oneβ that he learns a halakha from it?
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨; Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
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.
Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ? Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨.
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 5:1β13). Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ β Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
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.
Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ β Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°: Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ β Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ.
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.
Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ!
If so, these two passages are difficult, as they contradict one another.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ·: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ: Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧ€ΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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. αΈ€izkiyya 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: βAnd 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 impureβ (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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ! Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
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 Priestβs sin-offering is different, as he brings a sin-offering only for an unwitting transgression he performed on the basis of his own ruling.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ.
Β§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: The king brings a goat, and not a sliding-scale offering. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·, Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄Χ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺ: ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ! Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan 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 didnβt Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan say: Rabbi Eliezer concedes that a king does not bring a provisional guilt-offering? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, based on the statement of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan, the baraita is difficult.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ· ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ.
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].
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ,
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the formulation of the mishna: Now it can be said: An anointed priest who moved on from his anointment
