קשיין אהדדי If so, these two passages are difficult, as they contradict one another.
אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא קשיא כאן בדלות כאן בדלי דלות ור"ש סבר לה כר"ע בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא סבר לה כר"ע בדלי דלות דפטור ופליג עליה בדלות: 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.
אלא שאין כ"ג חייב כו': אמר חזקיה מ"ט דר"ש דכתיב (במדבר יט, כ) ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מתוך הקהל מי שקרבנו שוה לקהל יצא זה שאין קרבנו שוה לקהל § 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.
א"כ נשיא נמי אין קרבנו שוה לקהל שוה בכפרה דיוה"כ א"כ כהנים נמי לא שוו לקהל בכפרה דיוה"כ כהנים שוו לקהל בשאר מצות דשנה כולה 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 bring-ing 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.
משיח נמי הא שוה בשאר מצות דשנה אלא אמר רבא אימא הכי מי שחטאתו שוה ליחידים ומאי ניהו קהל: 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.
ר"א אומר הנשיא מביא שעיר וכו': א"ר יוחנן לא אמר ר' אליעזר אלא בטומאת מקדש וקדשיו הואיל ונאמר כרת בו כבקבועה § 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.
אמר רב פפא ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד ר"א על כולהון קאמר מכדי שעיר נשיא ופר משיח במקום יחיד לחטאת קאי ניתני נמי משיח מביא פר בשמיעת קול ובטוי שפתים אלא מדלא קתני משיח ש"מ אטומאת מקדש וקדשיו קאי דמשיח פטור 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.
א"ל רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לר"פ ממאי דלמא ר"א אכולהון קאי ובמשיח סבר לה כר"ע דאמר משיח פטור בכולן א"ל ור"ע מי פטר ליה מפר ותו לא מידי 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.
א"ר יוחנן מודה ר"א שאין מביא אשם תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת אשם תלוי בא על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו א"ל דאמר לך מני ר"א היא דאמר הואיל ונאמר בו כרת כבקבועה מייתי נשיא שעיר עליה והא"ר יוחנן מודה ר' אליעזר שאין מביא אשם תלוי קשיא: 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.
הדרן עלך הורה כהן משיח
מתני׳ כהן משיח שחטא ואח"כ עבר ממשיחותו וכן נשיא שחטא ואחר כך עבר מגדולתו כהן משיח מביא פר והנשיא מביא שעיר משיח שעבר ממשיחותו ואחר כך חטא וכן הנשיא שעבר מגדולתו ואח"כ חטא כהן משיח מביא פר והנשיא כהדיוט: 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].
גמ׳ השתא יש לומר עבר ממשיחותו GEMARA: The Gemara questions the formulation of the mishna: Now it can be said: An anointed priest who moved on from his anointment