Horayot

Whence are these laws derived? — [From] that which our Rabbis taught: Then let him offer for his sin  teaches that he  brings his sin offering even [if he sinned] after he relinquished office. For it might have been argued,  if a ruler who brings a sin offering in case of error in action alone does not bring his sin offering  after he lost his rank how much less an anointed High Priest who does not bring his sin offering in case of error in action alone but only where error in action was accompanied by ignorance of the law; hence Scripture expressly stated, 'Then let him offer for his sin,'  which teaches that he brings [the same offering] for his sin even [if he sinned] after he relinquished his office. [And in case it be argued:] Let, then [the law that] a ruler also  brings [the same sin offering]  be deduced by an inference from major to minor:  If an anointed High Priest who does not bring a sin offering for error in action alone brings nevertheless [the same] sin offering  [even if he sinned] after relinquishing office, how much more should a ruler who brings a sin offering for error in action alone, bring the same sin offering  [even if he sinned] after losing his rank; Scripture expressly stated, When a ruler sinneth,  only when he is 'a ruler'  but not when he is a layman. MISHNAH. IF THEY  COMMITTED A SIN BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED, THEY ARE REGARDED  AS LAYMEN. R. SIMEON SAID: IF THEIR SIN CAME TO THEIR KNOWLEDGE BEFORE THEY WERE APPOINTED THEY ARE LIABLE, BUT IF AFTER THEY WERE APPOINTED THEY ARE EXEMPT. WHO IS MEANT BY RULER? A KING; FOR IT IS STATED IN THE SCRIPTURES, ANY OF ALL THE THINGS WHICH THE LORD HIS GOD HATH COMMANDED,  HE ABOVE WHOM THERE IS NONE BUT THE LORD HIS GOD. GEMARA. Whence are these laws derived? — [From] that which our Rabbis taught: If the anointed priest shall sin,  excludes sins committed previously.  Could not this law, however, be arrived at by logical reasoning: If a ruler who brings a sin offering for error in action alone does not bring one for sins committed previously,  how much less should a High Priest, who brings a sin offering only where error in action was accompanied by ignorance of the law, bring one for sins committed previously! But no; if this  is said to apply to a ruler who indeed does not bring his sin offering after he lost his rank, could it be said to apply also to an anointed High priest who does bring his sin offering even after he relinquished office?  Since he brings his sin offering even after relinquishing office it might have been assumed that he brings also for sins committed previously,  hence Scripture stated, 'The anointed priest shall sin'  [which teaches that] if he sinned while he was already anointed High Priest he brings [the prescribed sin offering], if, however, when he was still one of the common people he does not bring it. A similar discussion also took place  in respect of a ruler: When in ruler sinneth  excludes sins he committed previously.  Could not this law, however, be arrived at by logical reasoning: If an anointed High Priest who brings his sin offering even [if he sinned] after he relinquished office does not, nevertheless, bring one for sins he committed previously,  how much less should a ruler who does not bring his sin offering  [if he sinned] after he lost his rank, bring one for sins he committed previously. The anointed High Priest [it may, however, be retorted] may well be exempt from bringing  because he is also exempt [where his sin consisted] of error in action alone, could it be said, however, [that the same law should apply] to a ruler who does bring one [where his sin consisted] of error in action a lone? Now, since he brings  for error in action alone it might be assumed that he brings also for sins he committed previously,  hence Scripture stated, 'When a ruler sinneth,'  only if he sinned when he was already ruler,  but not if he sinned while he was still a layman. Our Rabbis taught: When  a ruler sinneth  might have been taken to imply a decree, hence Scripture stated, If the anointed priest shall sin;  as there the meaning is 'if and when  he sinneth' so here also the meaning is 'if and when he sinneth'. The Master said, '[It] might have been taken to imply a decree'; but could one possibly imagine such a thing!  — Yes, it may be answered, for we find that it is written in the Scripture, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession,  which is an announcement to them that they will be visited by plagues; these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: [This text] excludes  plagues due to supernatural causes.  Now, as  R. Judah declared [that the Scriptural text is] an announcement, so here also it might have been assumed that the text implies a decree, hence 'if' had to be written. According to R. Simeon, however, do not plagues that are due to supernatural causes impart Levitical uncleanness? Surely it was taught, When a man shall have,  implies 'from the time of the promulgation onwards'.  May not this, however, be arrived at by logical deduction? Uncleanness [is mentioned in connection] with one who has an issue,  and uncleanness [is mentioned in respect] of plagues; as in the case of a man who has an issue, [the laws of uncleanness are applicable only] from the time of their promulgation onwards,  so in the case of plagues [their laws of uncleanness are applicable only] from the time of their promulgation onwards! No; if [this restriction] is applicable to a man who has an issue, because he does not become unclean where it was due to accident, could it also be said to apply to plagues which do impart uncleanness even where they were due to supernatural causes.  Hence Scripture stated, 'When a man shall have'  which implies, 'from the time of the promulgation onwards'!  — Raba replied: The exclusion  refers to plagues that are due to ghosts,  R. Papa replied: The exclusion refers to plagues that are due to witchcraft. Our Rabbis taught: When in ruler sinneth  excludes a sick man. Should he, because he is, sick, be removed from his rank? — R. Abdimi b. Hama replied: The exclusion refers to a ruler who became leprous; as it is said, And the Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in the house of freedom,'  and Jotham the king's son wins over the household. Since it is stated, In the house of freedom  it must be inferred that until then he was a servant;  as is illustrated in the case  of R. Gamaliel  and R. Joshua.  They once traveled on board a ship. R. Gamaliel had with him some bread only, while R. Joshua had with him bread and flour. When R. Gamaliel's bread was consumed he depended on R. Joshua's flour. 'Did you know', the former asked him, 'that we should be so much delayed that you brought flour with you?' The latter answered him, 'A certain star rises once in seventy years and leads the sailors  astray, and I suspected it might rise and lead us astray.' 'You possess so much knowledge', the former said to him, 'and yet must travel on board a ship!'  The other replied, 'Rather than be surprised at me, marvel at two disciples you have on land, R. Eleazar Hisma and R. Johanan b. Gudgada,  who are able to calculate how many drops there are in the sea, and yet have neither bread to eat nor raiment to put on. He decided to appoint them as supervisors,  and when he landed  he sent for them, but they did not come.  He sent for them a second time and when they came he said to them, 'Do you imagine that I offer you rulership?