## Horayot Daf 10a

###### Horayot 10a:1
[Horayot 10a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:1)

וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא מֵבִיא פַּר, חָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי נָשִׂיא, דְּכִי עָבַר מִנְּשִׂיאוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא – כְּהֶדְיוֹט מַיְיתֵי, אַהָכִי תָּנֵי גַּבֵּי מָשִׁיחַ [חָטָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ עָבַר] מֵבִיא פַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Horayot 10a:2
[Horayot 10a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:2)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Horayot 10a:3
[Horayot 10a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:3)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – [לֹא] כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיב עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא עַל חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:4
[Horayot 10a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:4)

וְנַיְיתֵי נָמֵי נָשִׂיא מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת מִשֶּׁעָבַר, נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאת בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, כְּשֶׁהוּא נָשִׂיא – אִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:5
[Horayot 10a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** חָטְאוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַנּוּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּהֶדְיוֹטוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם נוֹדַע לָהֶם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְמַנּוּ – חַיָּיבִים, וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְמַנּוּ – פְּטוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Horayot 10a:6
[Horayot 10a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:6)

אֵיזֶהוּ נָשִׂיא? זֶה מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו״, שֶׁאֵין עַל גַּבָּיו אֶלָּא ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Horayot 10a:7
[Horayot 10a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא (לְאַשְׁמַת)״ – פְּרָט לַקּוֹדְמוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Horayot 10a:8
[Horayot 10a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:8)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה נָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין מֵבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת, מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא עַל הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר עִם שִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Horayot 10a:9
[Horayot 10a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:9)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּנָשִׂיא – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, תֹּאמַר בְּמָשִׁיחַ – שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר, הוֹאִיל וּמֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא״, חָטָא כְּשֶׁהוּא מָשִׁיחַ – מֵבִיא, כְּשֶׁהוּא הֶדְיוֹט – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:10
[Horayot 10a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:10)

וְתַנְיָא נָמֵי גַּבֵּי נָשִׂיא כְּהַאי גַּוְונָא: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – פְּרָט לַקּוֹדְמוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Horayot 10a:11
[Horayot 10a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:11)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת, נָשִׂיא שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ מִשֶּׁעָבַר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Horayot 10a:12
[Horayot 10a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:12)

מָה לְמָשִׁיחַ שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה, תֹּאמַר בְּנָשִׂיא שֶׁמֵּבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה? הוֹאִיל וּמֵבִיא בְּשִׁגְגַת מַעֲשֶׂה – יָבִיא עַל הַקּוֹדְמוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – שֶׁחָטָא וַהֲרֵי הוּא נָשִׂיא, וְלֹא שֶׁחָטָא וְעוֹדֵהוּ הֶדְיוֹט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Horayot 10a:13
[Horayot 10a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״, יָכוֹל גְּזֵרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא״, מָה לְהַלָּן לִכְשֶׁיֶּחֱטָא – אַף כָּאן לִכְשֶׁיֶּחֱטָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Horayot 10a:14
[Horayot 10a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:14)

אָמַר מָר: יָכוֹל גְּזֵרָה, גְּזֵרָה מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Horayot 10a:15
[Horayot 10a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:15)

אָמְרִי אִין, אַשְׁכְּחַן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת בְּבֵית אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶם״, בְּשׂוֹרָה הִיא לָהֶם שֶׁנְּגָעִים בָּאִים עֲלֵיהֶם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי אוֹנָסִין. לָאו אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשׂוֹרָה? הָכָא נָמֵי אֵימָא גְּזֵרָה הִיא! הִלְכָּךְ כְּתִיב: ״אִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:16
[Horayot 10a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:16)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, נִגְעֵי אוֹנָסִין מִי לָא מְטַמּוּ? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה״ – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ. וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: טָמֵא בְּזָב וְטָמֵא בִּנְגָעִים, מָה זָב – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ, אַף נְגָעִים – מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:17
[Horayot 10a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:17)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּזָב שֶׁכֵּן אֵין מְטַמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, תֹּאמַר בִּנְגָעִים שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין בְּאוֹנֶס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה״, מִן הַדִּבּוּר וְאֵילָךְ. רָבָא אָמַר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי רוּחוֹת. רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: פְּרָט לְנִגְעֵי כְשָׁפִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Horayot 10a:18
[Horayot 10a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:18)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא״ – פְּרָט לְחוֹלֶה. מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ חוֹלֶה, אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ מִנְּשִׂיאוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חָמָא: פְּרָט לְנָשִׂיא שֶׁנִּצְטָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְנַגַּע ה׳ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיְהִי מְצֹרָע עַד יוֹם מֹתוֹ וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית וְיוֹתָם בֶּן הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל הַבַּיִת״. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״בְּבֵית הַחׇפְשִׁית״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא עֶבֶד הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Horayot 10a:19
[Horayot 10a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:19)

כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲווֹ אָזְלִי בִּסְפִינְתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הֲוָה פִּיתָּא, בַּהֲדֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הֲוָה פִּיתָּא וְסוּלְתָּא. שְׁלִים פִּיתֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, סְמַךְ אַסּוּלְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דְּהָוֵה לַן עִכּוּבָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי דְּאַיְתֵית סוּלְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כּוֹכָב אֶחָד לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה עוֹלֶה וּמַתְעֶה אֶת (הַסְּפִינוֹת) [הַסַּפָּנִים], וְאָמַרְתִּי: שֶׁמָּא יַעֲלֶה וְיַתְעֶה [אוֹתָנוּ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Horayot 10a:20
[Horayot 10a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כׇּל כָּךְ בְּיָדְךָ, וְאַתָּה עוֹלֶה בִּסְפִינָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַד שֶׁאַתָּה תָּמֵהַּ עָלַי, תְּמַהּ עַל שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ בַּיַּבָּשָׁה, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חַסָּמָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְשַׁעֵר כַּמָּה טִפּוֹת יֵשׁ בַּיָּם, וְאֵין לָהֶם פַּת לֶאֱכוֹל וְלֹא בֶּגֶד לִלְבּוֹשׁ! נָתַן דַּעְתּוֹ לְהוֹשִׁיבָם בָּרֹאשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Horayot 10a:21
[Horayot 10a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Horayot/r/10a:21)

כְּשֶׁעָלָה, שָׁלַח לָהֶם וְלֹא בָּאוּ, חָזַר וְשָׁלַח וּבָאוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם: כִּמְדוּמִּין אַתֶּם שֶׁשְּׂרָרָה אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָכֶם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?