Horayot 11a

הוּא דְּלָא, הָא צַעוֹרֵי צַעֲרִינְהוּ. וְאִילּוּ צְעִירָה דִּקְרָיתֵיהּ ״בֶּן עַמִּי״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַל תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל תִּתְגָּר בָּם״, כְּלָל, אֲפִילּוּ צַעוֹרֵי לָא.

that one may not contend with them, but it is permitted to harass them. While concerning the offspring of the younger daughter, who called her son ben Ami, son of my people, avoiding any direct mention of the baby’s father, God said to Moses: “Neither harass them, nor contend with them” (Deuteronomy 2:19), at all. Even to harass them is not permitted.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: לְעוֹלָם יַקְדִּים אָדָם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, שֶׁבִּשְׂכַר לַיְלָה אַחַת שֶׁקָּדְמָה בְּכִירָה לַצְּעִירָה, זָכְתָה וּקְדָמַתָּה אַרְבַּע דּוֹרוֹת לַמַּלְכוּת.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ. ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא,

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

וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר יָצְאוּ מָשִׁיחַ לִידּוֹן בְּפַר, נָשִׂיא לִידּוֹן בְּשָׂעִיר! שֶׁיָּכוֹל: מָשִׁיחַ עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה מֵבִיא פַּר, עַל שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְמָשִׁיחַ. ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא.

The baraita continues: But weren’t these individuals already excluded from bringing a ewe or a female goat as a sin-offering, as an anointed priest is subject to atonement with a bull, and a king is subject to atonement with a male goat? Why then is an additional exclusionary derivation necessary? The baraita answers: The derivation is necessary, as one might have thought that an anointed priest brings a bull for absence of awareness of the matter together with the unwitting performance of an action, but that he brings a ewe or a female goat, as does a non-priest, for the unwitting performance of an action alone. Therefore, the verse states: “From among the common people,” which serves to exclude the anointed priest, who is completely exempt from bringing a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression unless it was committed on the basis of his own erroneous ruling. The baraita concludes: The phrase “from among the common people” serves to exclude the king.

תִּינַח מָשִׁיחַ, אֶלָּא נָשִׂיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דְּמַיְיתֵי!

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

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן. הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָזֵל בָּתַר יְדִיעָה, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן (דְּאָזְלוּ) [דְּאָזְלִי] בָּתַר חֲטָאָה, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא נִצְטְרֵף וְנַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: נְשִׂיאוּת מַהוּ שֶׁתַּפְסִיק, הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֲצִי כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְעָבַר, וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ – הָתָם הוּא דְּלָא מִצְטְרֵף, דְּאַכְלֵיהּ פַּלְגָא כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט וּפַלְגָא כְּשֶׁהוּא נָשִׂיא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט אַכְלֵיהּ מִצְטְרֵף, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? מַאי?

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

תִּפְשׁוֹט לֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּד וְחָזַר בּוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה – יִדָּחֶה. הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? מְשׁוּמָּד לָאו בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן הוּא, הַאי בַּר אֵתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן הוּא.

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

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָכַל סָפֵק חֵלֶב כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט, וְנִתְמַנָּה וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל סְפֵקוֹ, מַהוּ? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָזְלִי בָּתַר חֲטָאָה לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּמַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, אֶלָּא כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

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

מִדְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי לְוַדַּאי, אִשְׁתַּנִּי לְסָפֵק, אוֹ דִלְמָא כִּי אִשְׁתַּנִּי לְוַדַּאי, דְּאִשְׁתַּנִּי קׇרְבָּן דִּידֵיהּ – אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא אִשְׁתַּנִּי קׇרְבָּן דִּידֵיהּ, אֵימָא לַיְיתֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי? תֵּיקוּ.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵעַם הָאָרֶץ״ – פְּרָט לִמְשׁוּמָּד.

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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאָשֵׁם״, הַשָּׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ, לֹא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ.

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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי הַמְנוּנָא: מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב וּמֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל הַדָּם – אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּמְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב – לְדָם נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד הָוֵי, וּמָר סָבַר: לְדָם מִיהָא שָׁב בִּידִיעָתוֹ הוּא.

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

וְהָא רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְשׁוּמָּד לֶאֱכוֹל חֵלֶב לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד לְדָם! אֶלָּא, הָכָא בְּאוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה לְתֵאָבוֹן וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ בְּשׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דִּלְתֵאָבוֹן אָכֵיל בְּמֵזִיד – מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ אַשְׁכַּח דְּהֶיתֵּרָא לָא אֲכַל דְּאִיסּוּרָא – לָאו מְשׁוּמָּד הוּא.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָכַל חֵלֶב – זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אָכַל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. אָמַר מָר: אָכַל חֵלֶב זֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד, וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד? אוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת כּוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר?

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

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָכַל חֵלֶב לְתֵאָבוֹן – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – הֲרֵי זֶה מִין. וְאֵיזֶהוּ מְשׁוּמָּד דְּבִסְתָמוֹ מִין? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אוֹכֵל נְבֵילָה וּטְרֵיפָה, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, וְשָׁתָה יֵין נֶסֶךְ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם.

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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כִּלְאַיִם דְּרַבָּנַן. מָר סָבַר: מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, דְּרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד. וּמָר סָבַר: כִּלְאַיִם כֵּיוָן דִּמְפַרְסַם אִסּוּרֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן הָוֵי מְשׁוּמָּד.

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

פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַב אַחָא וְרָבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: לְתֵאָבוֹן – מְשׁוּמָּד, לְהַכְעִיס – מִין. וְחַד אָמַר: לְהַכְעִיס נָמֵי מְשׁוּמָּד, אֶלָּא אֵיזֶהוּ מִין? כָּל הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מֵיתִיבִי: אָכַל פַּרְעוֹשׁ אֶחָד אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשׁוּמָּד. וְהָא הָכָא דִּלְהַכְעִיס הוּא, וְקָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ מְשׁוּמָּד! הָתָם דְּאָמַר: אֶטְעוֹם טַעַם דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree with regard to this matter. One said: If one violated a prohibition due to appetite or convenience he is an apostate, while one who eats to express insolence is a heretic. And one said: One who violates a prohibition to express insolence is also an apostate. Rather, who is a heretic? It is anyone who engages in idol worship. The Gemara raises an objection to the first opinion from a baraita : If a person ate one flea or one mosquito, this person is an apostate. But here, isn’t it a case where it is a violation performed to express insolence, as one has no desire to eat these insects, and yet the tanna calls him an apostate? The Gemara answers: The reference there, in that baraita , is to the case of one who eats the flea due to appetite, as he says: I shall taste the flavor of prohibition. He seeks to eat a food that he has never eaten before.

וְאֵיזֶהוּ נָשִׂיא? זֶה מֶלֶךְ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״נָשִׂיא״ – יָכוֹל נְשִׂיא שֵׁבֶט כְּנַחְשׁוֹן בֶּן עַמִּינָדָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, וּלְהַלָּן: הוּא אוֹמֵר ״לְמַעַן יִלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״.

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