Horayot 9
Share this shiur:
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Oceanside NY, 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
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Minnesota, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
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
