Horayot

Rabina enquired of R. Nahman b. Isaac: What is the law of a ruler who was stricken with leprosy;  [was his obligation] com pletely set aside,  or was he only temporarily exempted?  — He said to him: [Does he bring] of yours or of his own! It was taught: R. Akiba said: An anointed High Priest is exempt from all these.  Raba said: What is R. Akiba's reason? — Scripture stated, This is the offering of Aaron and his sons,  [implying] that only this [one] is obligatory upon him but no other such offering  is obligatory upon him. Might it not be suggested that the All Merciful has exempted him only from the poorest offering which is  a tenth part of an ephah  but not  [from those other offerings that are brought in case of] poverty and wealth!  — his cannot be imagined at all, for it is written, And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things,  whoever may receive atonement by everyone of these  may also receive atonement by any of the others,  but whosoever may not obtain atonement by every one of these may not obtain atonement by any of the others. Now, however,  since it is written, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,  is the meaning there also that whosoever is liable for everyone of these can also become liable for any of the others and whosoever is not liable for everyone of these cannot become liable for the others! Why then have we learned that R. Akiba said: A ruler is liable for all except for hearing of the voice? — Both Abaye and Raba replied: [The expression] in any  is regarded by him as proof but that of in one  is not regarded by him as proof. But why is 'in any' regarded as proof? — Because the All Merciful has written in at the end in connection with the law of the tenth part of an ephah; thus indicating that whosoever is liable to bring the tenth part of an ephah can also come under the obligation to bring any of the others. For could it have been imagined that a person may be liable for one of these offerings [alone] although he cannot become liable for any of the others, in any of these things  should have been written either in connection with the offering to the poor  or with that for the rich! MISHNAH. [FOR THE UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION OF ANY OF] ALL THE COMMANDMENTS IN THE TORAH THE PENALTY FOR WHICH, IF COMMITTED WILFULLY, IS KARETH AND, IF COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY, A SIN OFFERING, THE INDIVIDUAL BRINGS AS AN OFFERING A LAMB OR A GOAT;  THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT;  AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST AND THE COURT BRING A BULLOCK.  IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY, THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST BRING A GOAT  WHILE THE COURT BRING A BULLOCK AND A GOAT, THE BULLOCK FOR A BURNT OFFERING AND THE GOAT FOR A SIN OFFERING.  THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER ARE BOTH SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM TALUI,  BUT THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST AND THE COURT ARE EXEMPT. THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE RULER AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST ARE SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATION OF AN ASHAM WADDAI,  BUT THE COURT IS EXEMPT. [FOR UNWITTING TRANSGRESSION] IN RESPECT OF THE HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION],  FOR SWEARING CLEARLY WITH THE LIPS  AND FOR UNCLEANNESS RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS, THE COURT IS EXEMPT AND THE INDIVIDUAL, THE RULER  AND THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST ARE LIABLE, WITH THIS EXCEPTION,  THAT THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST IS NOT LIABLE FOR A TRANSGRESSION RELATING TO THE UNCLEANNESS OF THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. SIMEON. WHAT DO THEY  BRING? A SLIDING SCALE SACRIFICE. R. ELIEZER SAID: THE RULER BRINGS A GOAT. GEMARA. It was taught: R. Simeon laid down the following rule; Wherever the individual is liable to an asham talui  the ruler is subject to the same obligation, while an anointed High Priest and the court are exempt; and wherever the individual is liable to an asham waddai  a ruler and an anointed High Priest are subject to the same obligation while the court is exempt. In respect of hearing of the voice, swearing clearly with the lips, and the uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things, the court is exempt while a ruler and an anointed High Priest are liable, except that the ruler is not liable in respect of heating of the voice nor the anointed High Priest in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things. Wherever an individual is liable to a sliding scale sacrifice, the ruler is subject to the same obligation while the anointed High Priest and the court are exempt. Is not this teaching self-contradictory? First it is stated that an anointed High Priest is not liable in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things. [from which it follows that] he is exempt only in respect of uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things but that in respect of hearing of the voice and swearing clearly with the lips he is liable; now read the final clause; 'Wherever an individual is liable to a sliding scale sacrifice, the ruler is subject to the same obligation while an anointed High Priest and the court are exempt;' since the exemptions of the High Priest and that of the court were mentioned together  [it follows that] as the court is exempt from all these  so is the anointed High Priest exempt from all these.