The Poor Need Not Borrow and the Anointed Priest's Exemption

"And if his means do not suffice" (Leviticus 5:7-8). We do not tell him to borrow money, and we do not tell him to take up a trade. If he has a sheep but lacks his necessities, from where do we learn that he brings the offering of a poor man? Scripture teaches, saying, "enough for a sheep." One is not liable for an offering on account of failing to testify when one has heard a call to give evidence, nor for a rash oath of the lips, nor for defiling the Sanctuary or its holy things; and the prince is treated like the rest of the people in these matters - these are the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: the prince is liable in all of them except for failing to respond to a summons to testify, because the king neither judges nor is he judged. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yose the Galilean? It says "if his means do not suffice" (literally, "if his hand does not reach") and it says "if his hand attains" (Leviticus 5:11); the law speaks of one who can come to poverty, which excludes the anointed priest and the prince, who do not come to poverty. The prince is excluded, as it is written, "and he does one of all the commandments of the LORD his God" (Leviticus 4:22) - one who has none above him but his God. The anointed priest is excluded, as it is written, "and the priest who is greater than his brethren" (Leviticus 21:10) - that he should be greater than his brethren in beauty, in strength, and in wealth. Others say: from where do we learn that if he lacks wealth, they enrich him from the funds of his brethren? Scripture teaches, saying, "and the priest who is greater than his brethren" - make him greater from the funds of his brethren. It was taught: Rabbi Akiva says, the anointed priest is exempt from all of them, for the verse says, "this is the offering of Aaron and his sons" (Leviticus 6:13) - this offering comes as an obligation upon him, and no other comes as an obligation upon him. One might say that Scripture excluded him only from the lowest tier of poverty, namely the tenth of an ephah, but did not exclude him from the poor man's offering and the rich man's offering. Do not let this enter your mind, for it is written, "and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin which he has sinned, from one of these" (Leviticus 5:13): whoever gains atonement by one of these gains atonement by all of them, and whoever does not gain atonement by one does not gain atonement by any. But if so, regarding "for one of these," should we likewise say that whoever becomes liable for one becomes liable for all, and whoever does not become liable for one does not become liable for any? Then why do we teach that Rabbi Akiva says the prince is liable in all of them except failing to testify? Because he derives meaning from "from one" but does not derive it from "for one." Why does the Merciful One write this at the end, regarding the tenth of an ephah? To tell us that one is liable for all the categories; for if it had entered your mind that he is liable for one even though he is not liable for all, the Merciful One should have written this clause "for one of these" by the poor man's offering or by the rich man's offering.