Horayot 7a — the Talmud in English

And the beraita asks: For what purpose is it necessary to learn from the comparison that the law of the anointed priest is like that of the public?

Is it not a logical derivation

that the law of the anointed priest should be that he must have ruled unwittingly and acted unwittingly, for [the]

public is removed from the category of an individual

[for the obligation of the public is a bull, whereas the obligation of an individual is a female sheep or female goat], and

the anointed priest

also

is removed from the category of an individual

[for the law of the anointed priest is a bull] .

Just as with the public, they are liable only for the unwittingness of a matter together with unwittingness of an act, so too with the anointed priest, he should be liable only for the unwittingness of a matter together with unwittingness of an act.

And if so, why do I need the comparison? It is possible to know this law from a binyan av, as we explained ?!

And if you will argue:

“Or turn to this path”:

From where is it preferable to learn the anointed priest from the public, and why should we not learn the anointed priest by a mah matzinu from a ruler, for he too is removed from the category of an individual in that he is liable to bring a male goat for a sin-offering? Let us say as follows:

A ruler is removed from the category of an individual, and an anointed priest is removed from the category of an individual. Just as a ruler brings

his special sacrifice for his sin-offering for his sin

for unwittingness of an act

alone,

without the unwittingness of a matter, so too an anointed priest brings

his bull, which is special to him,

for unwittingness of an act, without the unwittingness of a matter!

This is not an argument. For

let us see to whom he resembles,

the anointed priest: to the public or to the ruler?

The public,

their law is

a bull

for a certain sin,

and the

public

does not bring a provisional guilt-offering

for an uncertain sin.

And the same הדין applies to

the anointed priest,

whose דין is

with a bull

for a certain sin,

and

likewise

he does not

bring

a provisional guilt-offering

for an uncertain sin—as will be explained below].

Conversely, a ruler does not bring a bull for a certain sin, whereas, on the other hand, he does bring a provisional guilt-offering for an uncertain sin.

Therefore it is preferable to derive the דין of the anointed priest from the community, and to say:

Just as the community is liable only for the concealment of the matter together with an unwitting act, so too the anointed priest shall be liable only for the concealment of the matter together with an unwitting act!

If so, the question returns: why was a verse necessary for the hekesh, in order to teach us that an anointed priest is liable only for an unwitting act together with an unwitting ruling? After all, the anointed priest is similar to the community, and this can be learned by a binyan av from the community.

Rather, it can still be argued:

Or, turn to this alternative line of reasoning: a ruler brings a she-goat

as a sin-offering for a sin that he committed

in idolatry, and he brings a definite guilt-offering

such as a guilt-offering for robbery or a guilt-offering for misuse of sacred property, concerning which “person” is stated, and a ruler or an anointed priest is included in this.

And the anointed priest

too

brings a she-goat for idolatry, and brings a definite guilt-offering,

and in this respect he is similar to the ruler.

But the community does not bring a she-goat when it sins in idolatry, but rather a bull and a he-goat; and the דין of a definite guilt-offering does not apply to the community either, because the community is not called a “person,” and through this it was excluded from liability for a guilt-offering.

If so, also with regard to the other mitzvot, it is preferable to derive the matter through a mah matzinu:

Just as a ruler brings

the ruler’s offering for the other mitzvot, which is a he-goat,

for an unwitting act

without concealment of the matter,

so too the anointed priest brings

his special bull

for an unwitting act

alone, without concealment of the matter!?

Therefore,

the verse says: “

If the anointed priest sins

to the guilt of the people.”

The text taught you through the hekesh of the anointed priest to the community that

he—the anointed priest—is like the community.

Just as the community does not bring

a bull

except for the concealment of the matter together with an unwitting act, so too the anointed priest does not bring

his bull

except for the concealment of the matter together with an unwitting act!

And perhaps you will say,

let us say

that another matter should be stated by force of this hekesh:

Just as the community,

if

the court ruled

a ruling,

and the community acted

after it according to its ruling,

is liable,

the court for a bull for the concealment of the matter,

so too the anointed priest, when he ruled and others acted after him according to his ruling, shall be liable

to bring a bull,

even though he himself did not act!?

The verse says: “And he shall bring for his sin that he committed”

The text teaches through “that he committed” that only

for what he himself committed

the anointed priest

brings

a bull,

and he does not

bring

bring

a bull

for what others committed

according to his ruling.

The Gemara now discusses the words of the tanna in the beraita:

The Master said,

in explaining why we do not derive the anointed priest from the ruler, so that the anointed priest should be liable for an unwitting act alone:

The anointed priest brings a bull, and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering,

whereas a ruler brings a he-goat and also brings a provisional guilt-offering.

And we raised a question about it:

From where do we know that he does not bring

the anointed priest

a provisional guilt-offering?

The Gemara explains:

For it is written

with regard to a provisional guilt-offering: “

And the priest shall atone for him for his unwitting act that he committed.”

And we expound:

One whose sin-offering and unwitting act are the same,

for everything depends for him upon an unwitting act alone—he is the one who is liable for a provisional guilt-offering.

The anointed priest is excluded, for his unwitting act and his sin are not the same,

but the unwitting act also depends upon concealment of the matter, because

it is written, “to the guilt of the people,”

through this the anointed priest was compared to the community, to teach:

the anointed priest is like the community.

Just as the community is liable only for concealment of the matter and an unwitting act, so too the anointed priest is liable only for concealment of the matter and an unwitting act; therefore the anointed priest was also excluded from liability for a provisional guilt-offering, like the community.

But the Gemara objects: how can the words of the tanna at the beginning of the course of reasoning of the beraita be explained as meaning that the anointed priest’s unwitting act and his sin-offering are not the same because of the comparison of the anointed priest to the community, in the words of the text, “

to the guilt of the people”?

After all, this claim was made at the beginning of the course of reasoning of the beraita, when the tanna argues why this hekesh is necessary; if so,

it is necessarily the case that he did not say to him

that this hekesh is what is being learned.

For the entire discussion is to compare the דין of the anointed priest to that of the community without the hekesh, solely through a binyan av, on the basis that the anointed priest resembles the community, which also brings a bull and does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, like the community. Only in the conclusion, after the tanna rejected the possibility of deriving it through a binyan av, does he arrive at deriving it from the hekesh!

Therefore, the Gemara says that the tanna indeed did not derive this from the hekesh.

Rather,

the essential comparison between the anointed priest and the community is only with regard to bringing a bull, which does not apply to a ruler, who brings a he-goat. And the fact that the tanna also compared them in that both are exempt from a

guilt-offering

provisional, whereas the ruler is liable,

was incidental!

He said it for no reason, without benefit, since in the initial assumption we have no source to exempt the anointed priest from it.

Mishna:

1.

If

an anointed priest issued an erroneous ruling concerning a particular prohibition

by himself,

and the court issued an erroneous ruling to the community concerning another prohibition,

and

the anointed priest acted according to his ruling

by himself,

he achieves atonement

with his bull

by himself,

and he does not achieve atonement through the bull for the concealment of the matter that the community brings for the court’s ruling concerning the other prohibition.

But if

he ruled together with the community

the same ruling concerning the same matter about which the court ruled,

and acted together with the community,

he does not bring his bull, but rather

he achieves atonement together with the community.

The reason for this is that he achieves atonement through the community’s offering, even though he has an independent obligation to bring a bull for his unwitting act, because the anointed priest’s atonement resembles the community’s atonement in many respects, for example:

the court is not liable

for a bull for the concealment of the matter

until it rules to nullify part

of the mitzva

and to uphold part

of the mitzva, but not when it rules to uproot the entire mitzva.

And likewise the anointed priest,

his דין is like that of the community, in that he is liable to bring a bull for his sin only when he ruled for himself to uphold part and nullify part.

And

likewise,

the court is not

liable to bring a bull as a burnt-offering and a he-goat as a sin-offering for an unwitting ruling

in idolatry, until it rules to nullify part and uphold part.

Likewise, the anointed priest is not liable to bring his offering for idolatry, which is a she-goat, until he errs in his ruling by upholding part and nullifying part.

It follows that the laws of the anointed priest are equal to the laws of the community in two respects. In the Mishnayot below, additional respects in which they were equated will be brought.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters,

that the Mishna stated:

1. If the anointed priest ruled concerning a prohibition by himself and acted by himself, he achieves atonement by himself.

2. If the anointed priest ruled together with the community and acted together with the community, he achieves atonement with them and does not bring his bull.

For the Sages taught: If he ruled

the anointed priest

together with the community and acted together with the community, one might have thought that he should bring a bull for himself.

It is logical that he does not bring one for himself, for

a ruler is excluded from the category of an individual,

as he brings for his unwitting act a sin-offering of a he-goat and not a female sheep or she-goat,

and

likewise

an anointed priest is excluded from the category of an individual,

as he brings a bull.

Just as a ruler,

only if he

sinned by himself does he bring by himself.

But if the ruler

sinned together with the community, he achieves atonement with the community [because his liability for a he-goat is for an unwitting act without a ruling, and therefore when he sinned through the court’s ruling, he is like an individual who achieves atonement through the community’s atonement].

So too the anointed priest,

we learn from him

that if he

sinned by himself, he brings by himself.

And if he

sinned together with the community, he achieves atonement with the community!

And perhaps you will refute this binyan av and say:

not

is the anointed priest similar to the ruler, and therefore it is impossible to derive the דין of the anointed priest from the דין of the ruler.

For

if you say regarding a ruler

that he achieves atonement with the community, this is because

he likewise achieves atonement with the community

through the he-goat brought to atone for their sins

on the Day of Atonement.

You can say regarding the anointed priest, who does not achieve atonement with the community on the Day of Atonement,

but rather brings a special bull for his atonement on the Day of Atonement.

If so, since he does not achieve atonement with the community on the Day of Atonement,

might he bring a bull for himself

therefore,

the verse says: “For his sin that he committed.”

The text teaches through “that he committed” that the anointed priest is liable to bring his bull only when he sinned because of his erroneous ruling, and only then—not when he sinned because there was also a ruling of the court concerning this matter, in addition to his own ruling.

How is this so?

1.

If he sinned by himself, he brings

a bull

by himself.

2.

If he sinned together with the community, he achieves atonement with the community

through the bull for the concealment of the matter of the community.

And the Gemara discusses the words of the Mishna and the beraita:

What are the circumstances?

In what manner did the Mishna and the beraita say that when he issued a ruling on his own and acted on his own, he does not attain atonement with the communal offering, because their ruling was concerning a different prohibition?

If you say,

it concerns a situation

where he,

the anointed koen, is

“mufla”

of the court,

and they,

the members of the court who issued a ruling for the public, and the public acted on the basis of their ruling,

are not

judges who are

[mufla].

Then

it is obvious

that

he attains atonement separately.

For

their ruling

is not a ruling

at all,

and it is obvious that they do not bring the bull offering for an unwitting communal error. Since only the koen’s ruling is considered a valid ruling, it is obvious that he achieves atonement independently.

And

likewise,

each and every one would have to bring a female sheep or a she-goat

from the public who acted according to their ruling, as the sin-offering of an individual, since their ruling is not considered the ruling of a court!

And if

it concerns a situation

where they are muflaim, and he is not a mufla,

then there is a difficulty:

Why does he attain atonement separately? Is his ruling

not a ruling

and is it nothing at all!

For the anointed koen is obligated to bring a bull only if he erred in his ruling while serving as a distinguished judge. But for an unwitting act without his own ruling, the anointed koen incurs no obligation at all, even if he is not a distinguished scholar.