'למה לי פוליטיקה עכשיו?' על עול השלטון

Shemaiah and Abtalion received [the oral tradition] from them. Shemaiah used to say: love work, hate acting the superior, and do not attempt to draw near to the ruling authority.

"Love work": Even if he has from what to sustain himself, he is obligated to work, as idleness leads to distraction (Ketuvot 59b) "hate lordship": and do not say, “I am a great man and it is a disgrace for me to work" - since Rav said to Rav Kahana (Pesachim 113a), "Flay a carcass in the market and take your pay, and do not say, 'I am a priest, I am a great man and the matter is a disgrace to me.'" Another explanation: “hate lordship,” [meaning] distance yourself from the taking of authority over the public, as lordship buries those that have it. "and do not become familiar with the government": in order to receive lordship through it. And also (another possibility is) “do not become familiar with the government” so that they will not make you transgress the doctrine of your Maker, as happened with Doeg the Edomite. "with the government" (rishut which literally means permission): Dominion is called permission, as the government has permission in its hand to do according to its will.

and thereafter sinned brings a bull. Does the case of one who sinned and thereafter moved on from his anointment need to be said? It is obvious that he is liable to bring a bull. The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a king, that when he moved on from his sovereignty and thereafter sinned he brings. an offering like that of a commoner; therefore, he teaches the corresponding halakha with regard to an anointed priest: If he sinned and thereafter moved on from his priesthood, he brings a bull. § With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned” (Leviticus 4:3); this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood. This derivation is necessary, as one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a goat as his sin-offering from the moment that he has moved on from his sovereignty, an anointed priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone; rather, he is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court together with unwitting performance of an action, is it not all the more so that he will not bring a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from the High Priesthood? Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned”; this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood. The Gemara asks: And let a king who is no longer king, too, bring a goat as a sin-offering based on an a fortiori inference: And if an anointed priest, who does not bring an offering for the unwitting performance of an action, brings a sin-offering after he has moved on from the priesthood, then with regard to a king, who brings a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he still brings his sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty? To counter this, the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), from which it is derived: If he sins when he is king, yes, he brings his sin-offering; if he sins when he is a commoner, no, he does not bring his sin-offering. MISHNA: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners; they bring the sin-offering of an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them, before they were appointed as king or High Priest, that they had sinned, they are liable to bring the sin-offering of an individual, but if it became known to them after they were appointed as king or High Priest they are completely exempt. 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. That is only the king. GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin to bring guilt” (Leviticus 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation, then with regard to an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions? The Gemara rejects this: No, if you said this with regard to a king, that is reasonable, as he does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, and instead brings the sin-offering of a commoner. Shall you also say this with regard to an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from his priesthood? Since he brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, perhaps he shall bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest? Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” from which it is derived: If he sins when he is serving as an anointed priest he brings a bull as his sin-offering; if he sins when he is an ordinary priest he does not bring a bull as his sin-offering. And it is also taught in this way in a baraita with regard to a king: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation as king. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, does not bring his sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation, then with regard to a king, who does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions? Apparently, there is no need for the derivation from the verse. The Gemara notes that this inference can be rejected. What is notable about an anointed priest? He is notable in that he does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action unless it was performed on the basis of an erroneous ruling. Shall you say the same with regard to a king, who brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, even without an erroneous ruling? Since he brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, shall he bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation? Therefore, the verse states: “When a king sins,” from which it is derived: In a case where he sins and he is king, he brings a bull as his sin-offering, and not in a case where he sins and he is still a commoner. § Apropos a king, the Sages taught: In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: “When [asher] a king sins.” One might have thought that this is a decree, i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). Just as there the meaning is: In the event that the priest shall sin, so too here, the meaning is: In the event that the king shall sin. The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that this is a decree. The Gemara asks: A decree? From where would this be derived? Why would it enter one’s mind that there would be a decree that the king must sin? The Sages say: Yes, there is a basis for that understanding, as we find that type of interpretation elsewhere; as it is written: “When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I shall place the mark of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). These are tidings informing them, i.e., the Jewish people, that leprous marks will come upon them when they enter Eretz Yisrael; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: This verse serves to teach that leprosy causes ritual impurity only when its origins are divine, to the exclusion of leprosy that results from circumstances beyond one’s control, i.e., those that have a clear physical cause. Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that leprosy could be tidings, i.e., that there will definitely be leprosy? Here too, with regard to the king, say that it is a decree that he will sin. Therefore, it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” meaning that the sin is not a given. The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And according to Rabbi Shimon, do leprous marks that result from circumstances beyond one’s control not cause ritual impurity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “When a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a wool-white leprous mark or a scab” (Leviticus 13:2); these halakhot apply from this statement onward, i.e., from the time that God gave this mitzva to the Jewish people, and these halakhot do not apply to leprosy that preceded the giving of the mitzva? And could this not be derived through logical inference: The Torah deemed one impure in the case of a zav, and the Torah deemed one impure in the case of leprous marks. Just as a zav is ritually impure only from the statement onward, so too, with regard to leprous marks, there is impurity only from that statement onward. There is no need for a derivation from the verse Leviticus 13:2. The baraita continues: This inference can be rejected: No, if you said that with regard to a zav, this is reasonable, as he does not become impure if his condition was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Shall you say the same with regard to leprous marks, which impart ritual impurity when caused by circumstances beyond one’s control? Therefore, the verse states: “When a person shall have,” indicating that there is impurity only from that statement onward. In any case, it is clear that leprosy causes impurity even if it was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Rava says in explanation: The phrase “and I shall place the mark of leprosy” serves to exclude leprous marks caused by evil spirits. Rav Pappa says in explanation: That phrase serves to exclude leprous marks caused by sorcery. § Apropos a king, the Sages taught that when the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), this serves to exclude a king who is ill. The Gemara asks: Due to the fact that he is ill, is he removed from his sovereignty? Rav Avdimi bar Ḥama said: The reference is not to all illnesses; rather, it is to exclude a king who is afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated concerning King Azariah: “And the Lord afflicted the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in an independent house. And Jotham, son of the king, was over the household, judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5). Azariah was removed from his sovereignty when he was afflicted with leprosy. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the verse states: “In an independent house,” by inference it may be understood that until now he was a servant, i.e., he was in servitude to the people. The Gemara notes: This is similar to that incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling together on a ship. Rabban Gamliel had sufficient bread for the journey. Rabbi Yehoshua also had sufficient bread, and additionally he had flour. The journey lasted longer than expected, and Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished. He relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour for nourishment. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Did you know from the outset that we would have so substantial a delay? Is that the reason that you brought flour with you? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: There is one star that rises once in seventy years and misleads sailors at sea, causing their journeys to be extended. And I said: Perhaps that star will rise during our journey and mislead us. Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy. When Rabban Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them and they came. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you?