Horayot

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Korha: One should always perform a good deed  as early as possible, for as a reward for the one night by which she  anticipated the younger  the elder  gained the privilege of royal status [in Israel]  four generations earlier. Our Rabbis taught: Of the common people  excludes an anointed High Priest;  'of the common people' excludes a ruler.  Have not these been once excluded, the anointed High Priest having been subjected to the offering  of a bullock and the ruler to that  of a he goat? — Since it might have been assumed that an anointed High Priest brings a bullock only where ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action but where there was error in action alone he brings a lamb or a she-goat,  hence it was expressly stated, 'of the common people,' to exclude an anointed High Priest,  'of the common people', to exclude a ruler. This reply satisfactorily explains the case of the anointed High Priest, but as regards that of the ruler, he, surely, does bring [his particular] offering even where there was only error in action!  — R. Zebid replied in the name of Raba: Here it is a case  where he ate, for instance, suet of the size of an olive  while he was still a commoner, then he was appointed to rulership and then his transgression came to his knowledge;  it might have been assumed that he must bring a lamb or a she goat,  hence it was stated [that the law was not so]. This explanation is quite satisfactory according to R. Simeon who is guided by  [the time the sin was brought to his] knowledge;  what, however, can be said according to the Rabbis who are guided by [the time] the sin was committed?  — But, said R. Zebid in the name of Raba, here it is a case  where he ate, for instance, suet of the size of half an olive while he was a commoner and then he was appointed to rulership and finished it,  and after that his transgression came to his knowledge; since it might have been assumed that these  are combined  and he must bring an offering of a lamb or a she goat, hence it was stated [that the law was not so]. Raba enquired of R. Nahman: Does rulership constitute a break? How is this to be understood? Where a man, for instance, ate suet of the size of half an olive while he was commoner, then he was appointed to rulership, and when he relinquished office he finished it;  are [the two halves] in the previous case  not combined merely because he ate the one half when he was a commoner and the other when he was ruler, but in this case,  since he ate both halves  when he was a commoner, the two are combined, or is there perhaps no difference? — This may be solved from the following: For 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man having eaten suet had set aside a sacrifice,  and then changed his faith and subsequently retracted, his offering, since it had been suspended,  must remain so for ever.  How now! An apostate is not a person qualified to bring a sacrifice, but this ruler is, surely, one who is well qualified to bring a sacrifice. R. Zera enquired of R. Shesheth: What is the law if, while a commoner, [the ruler]  ate something concerning which there is doubt as to whether it was not suet,  and having been appointed to rulership the doubt came to his knowledge?  According to the Rabbis who are guided by the time the sin was committed  there can be no question that he must bring an asham talui; the question, however, arises according to R. Simeon; does the change  affect a case of doubt as it does one of certainty  or does it, perhaps, affect a case of certainty only, because the ruler has to bring a different sacrifice,  but here, since his sacrifice does not change,  it might be said that he must bring an asham talui? — This remains undecided. Our Rabbis taught: Of the common people  excludes an apostate.  R. Simeon b. Jose said in the name of R. Simeon: [And doeth through] error [any of all the things] which [the Lord his God hath commanded] not to be done, and is guilty  implies that only he who repents when he becomes conscious of his sin brings a sacrifice for his error, but he who does not repent on becoming conscious of his sin does not bring a sacrifice for his error. What practical difference is there between them?  — R. Hamnuna replied: The difference between them lies in the case of one who, being an apostate in respect of the eating of suet, brings a sacrifice for eating blood; the Masters hold that since he is an apostate in respect of the eating of suet he is also regarded as an apostate in respect of the eating of the blood,  while the Master holds that in respect of blood, at least, he repents when he becomes conscious of his sin. But, surely, Raba stated that all agreed that an apostate in respect of the eating of suet is not regarded as an apostate in respect of the blood! — But here they  differ in regard to one who eats carrion  to satisfy his appetite,  and suet was mistaken by him for permitted fat and he ate it;  the Masters are of the opinion that, as he would have eaten it to satisfy his appetite even wilfully,  he is treated as an apostate,  while the Master is of the opinion that, as he does not eat forbidden food when he can obtain permitted food, he is not regarded as an apostate. Our Rabbis taught: He who eats suet is considered an apostate; and who is an apostate?  He who eats meat that is nebelah or trefa;  loathsome creatures or reptiles; or he who drinks wine of libation.54  R. Jose son of  R. Judah said: Also he who wears a garment made of wool and linen mingled together. The Master said: 'He who eats suet is considered an apostate; and who is an apostate? He who eats the meat that is nebelah or trefa.' What does this mean?  — Rabbah b. Bar Dana replied in the name of R. Johanan: It is this that was meant: If a man eats suet merely in order to satisfy his appetite he is considered an apostate, but if in defiance of the law he is considered a Sadducee.  And which apostate, in the absence of declared motive, is to be regarded a Sadducee? He who  eats the meat of animals that is nebelah or trefa, loathsome creatures or reptiles, or he who drinks wine of libation.60 'R. Jose son of R. Judah said: Also he who wears a garment made of wool and linen mingled together.' What is the practical difference between them?  — The difference between them is the case of a mingled texture forbidden only Rabbinically; the Masters hold the opinion that only when something is Biblically forbidden is he [who disregards it] to be deemed an apostate but if it is only Rabbinically forbidden one is not to be deemed an apostate; while the Master is of the opinion that in respect of a mingled texture, since its prohibition is well known, one is deemed an apostate [if he disregards it] even though the prohibition is only Rabbinical. [Concerning this law] there is a dispute between R. Aha and Rabina. One maintains [that he who eats forbidden food] in order to satisfy his appetite is deemed an apostate, but if in defiance of the law he is deemed to be a Sadducee; and the other maintains that even in defiance of the law he is deemed an apostate; but who is a Sadducee? He who worships idols. An objection was raised: 'If he ate one flea or one gnat he is considered an apostate;' in this case, surely, he acted in defiance of the law  and yet he is called an apostate! — There it is a case where he said, 'I would like to feel the taste of forbidden food.' WHO IS MEANT BY RULER? A KING etc. Our Rabbis taught: A ruler  might signify the ruler of a tribe, like Nahshon the son of Amminadab, hence it was stated, Of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded,  and further on it stated, That he may learn to fear the Lord his God,