Horayot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said:

Our Mishna is speaking

of a case where both were distinguished,

the court and the anointed priest.

The Mishna comes to teach us that although the court issued a ruling, and now brings a bull for an erroneous matter of the public, the anointed priest is not atoned for through it, because his ruling concerned a different prohibition, as will be explained below.

But if his ruling concerned the same matter about which the court ruled, then although he issued the ruling independently, he is atoned for through the offering of the public, as we derive from the verse “for his sin.”

Abaye thought to say

that this law—that if the anointed priest issued a ruling concerning one prohibition and the court issued a ruling concerning another prohibition, the anointed priest is not atoned for through the offering of the public—applies specifically when he

sinned [the correct reading should be: issued a ruling]

[the correct reading should be: ruled]

independently and acted independently.

The Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances?

For example, when

they sat—

the anointed priest and the court—

in two places

separate from one another,

and issued rulings concerning two different prohibitions

separate from one another.

But if they sat in one place, the anointed priest is atoned for through the offering of the public, despite the fact that he issued a ruling concerning a different prohibition. Since the court heard what he had ruled and did not protest his ruling, he is considered not to have sinned independently [the explanation of Rabbeinu Ḥananel].

Rava said to

Abaye:

Is that so,

meaning, do

two places cause

the anointed priest to bring an offering independently?

Rather,

necessarily,

even if they sat—

the anointed priest and the court—

in one place, since they issued rulings concerning two different prohibitions,

the

sin

of the anointed priest is considered a sin

independently!

The Gemara now explains the matter at length:

1.

This is obvious,

that if

he,

the anointed priest,

sinned through forbidden fat, while they,

the court, mistakenly instructed the public that it was permitted

to engage in idolatry,

then certainly

his sin is independent.

For forbidden fat and idolatry differ

in their nature

and rationale,

as they are derived from two different verses.

And they also differ

in

their offerings.

He,

who erred concerning forbidden fat, is subject

to a bull. And they,

who erred concerning idolatry, are subject

to a bull and a goat.

The distinction between them is a conspicuous one,

for these bring

the court that erred concerning idolatry

a goat

as the sin offering of the public, in addition to a bull as an elevation offering.

But

if

he,

the anointed priest,

does not bring

a goat, but only a bull .

2.

And all the more so in

a case in which

he

sinned

through idolatry, while they sinned through forbidden fat,

for he would certainly be considered to have sinned independently, since in this case the distinction between them is even more conspicuous,

as their offerings differ entirely. He

brings

a she-goat,

as is the law concerning an individual’s offering,

whereas they bring a bull.

Therefore, in both of these cases, it is obvious that the anointed priest is atoned for independently.

3.

Rather,

the uncertainty concerns a case in which

he

mistakenly permitted the matter to himself and sinned

through the fat that covers the innards,

while they

mistakenly instructed that it was permitted

to eat the fat on the intestines; what is the law?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say that although their offerings are the same [since both the anointed priest, whose offering is a bull, and the court, whose atonement is through a bull], nevertheless,

[since both the anointed kohen, who brings a bull, and the court, whose atonement is through a bull, bring a bull], nevertheless,

since they derive from two verses,

these prohibitions are derived from two passages,

they differ in their rationale.

Each side is therefore considered to have issued its own ruling and sinned independently, and the anointed priest is not atoned for through the offering of the people?

Or perhaps, it is one designation of forbidden fat,

and they are considered as though they issued a ruling concerning one prohibition, and the anointed priest is atoned for through the offering of the people?

4.

If you should say, “It is one designation of forbidden fat,”

and the anointed priest is atoned for through the bull of the public, there is still uncertainty concerning the following case:

He issued

his own

permission

concerning forbidden fat, while they

issued permission

concerning blood; what is the law?

Do we say that they differ in their rationale,

since these are two different designations of prohibitions?

Or perhaps, since they are the same

—forbidden fat and blood—

with regard to the offering,

since a bull is brought for both of them, whether by the anointed priest or by the court,

we follow the offering,

and the priest is considered to have issued a ruling together with the public, and the anointed priest is atoned for through the offering of the public?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

We learned in the Mishna:

that the court is not liable until it issues a ruling to nullify part and uphold part

and so on.

And we inquire about this:

From where do we know that until they issue a ruling to nullify part and uphold part

they are not liable?

We explain:

As we say in the other chapter

[above, 4b], for we derive:

“And the matter was hidden”—

“the matter,” but not the entire substance of the prohibition!

If the entire substance of the prohibition was hidden from them, they are not liable to bring a bull for an erroneous matter of the public.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise the anointed priest

is not liable until he issues a ruling to nullify part and uphold part.

From where do we know this?

As it is written,

“If the anointed priest shall sin,”

“to the guilt of the people”—the anointed priest is like the public!

That is, the parameters of his sin are the same as the parameters of the public’s sin on the basis of the court’s ruling, and the liability of both depends on a ruling to nullify part.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not in the case of idolatry

until the court issues a ruling to nullify part and uphold part.

From where do we know this? The Sages taught: Since idolatry

was singled out from the other mitzvot

to be judged independently,

so that a bull and a goat are required for an erroneous ruling concerning it,

one might have thought that they would be liable

for it even

for uprooting an entire mitzva.

It is stated here,

with regard to idolatry, “And it shall be, if it was

from the eyes of

the congregation,”

and it is stated there,

with regard to the other mitzvot, “And the matter was hidden

from the eyes of

the congregation.” We derive one from the other through a gzera shava:

Just as there,

with regard to the other mitzvot, the verse is speaking

of

a ruling issued by

the court,

as it is written, “And the matter was hidden from the eyes of the congregation, and they performed it,” indicating that “from the eyes of the congregation,” namely, the court, the ruling was hidden, whereas the congregation committed the sin unwittingly on the basis of that ruling,

so too here,

with regard to idolatry,

also,

the matter is

a ruling issued by

the

court. [

The verse stated with regard to idolatry does not itself prove that the matter concerns a ruling of the court, since it says, “And it shall be, if it was unwittingly from the eyes of the congregation,” and the doing does not refer to the court but to the public. It is only by means of the gzera shava that we learn that the matter concerns a ruling of the court.]

And just as there,

with regard to the other mitzvot, we say that what was hidden is

“the matter”—

but not the entire substance of the prohibition, so too here,

with regard to idolatry,

also

we say that what was hidden is

“the matter”—

but not the entire substance of the prohibition!

Mishna:

The court is liable

for an offering

only for an erroneous matter

of the court

together with an unwitting act

of the public.

And likewise the anointed priest

is not liable merely for an unwitting act; rather, the act must have been preceded by a ruling that he issued for himself in error. There is a novel element in the case of the anointed priest: For an unwitting act alone, he does not even bring an individual’s offering!

And

even

in the case of idolatry, they are not liable

the court for a bull and a goat, or the anointed priest for a bull,

except for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act.

Gemara:

From where do we know

that the court brings a bull for an erroneous matter only when the erroneous matter occurred together with an unwitting act?

For the Sages taught:

“And if the entire congregation of Israel

shall err.”

One might have thought that they would be liable

for a bull for an erroneous matter

for an unwitting act

alone.

The verse states, “They shall err and the matter was hidden”—

they are liable only for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act!

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise the anointed priest.

From where do we know this?

As it is written,

“If the anointed priest shall sin,”

“to the guilt of the people”—

the anointed priest is like the public!

That is, the parameters of his sin are the same as the parameters of the public’s sin on the basis of the court’s ruling, and the liability of both depends on an unwitting ruling, namely, an erroneous matter.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not in the case of idolatry, except for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act.

From where do we know this?

For the Sages taught: Since idolatry was singled out to be judged independently

so that a bull and a goat are required for it,

one might have thought that they would be liable

for it even

for an unwitting act

without an erroneous matter.

It is stated here,

with regard to idolatry,

“from the eyes,” and it is stated there,

with regard to the other mitzvot,

“from the eyes.” Just as there they are liable only for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act, so too here they are liable only for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act!

The Gemara analyzes the wording of our Mishna: In the first clause we learned that the court is liable in the case of the other mitzvot only for an erroneous matter together with an unwitting act, and likewise the anointed priest in the case of the other mitzvot is liable only when there was a ruling together with an unwitting act. By contrast, in the latter clause, concerning idolatry, we learned only that the court is liable for a ruling together with an unwitting act,

whereas

the

anointed priest

is not liable

in the case of idolatry

only for a ruling together with an unwitting act—

it does not state this!

It would seemingly follow that

the Mishna

that obligates an anointed priest who committed idolatry merely for an unwitting act, without a ruling, must necessarily be

whose view is it—

It is Rabbi’s!

As it was taught in a beraita: In the case of an anointed priest who committed idolatry—

Rabbi says

even if he sinned

through an unwitting act

alone, he is liable, even if he did not first issue a ruling permitting it to himself, and there was no unawareness of a matter.

And the Sages say

that the law governing an anointed priest in the case of idolatry is the same as his law regarding the other mitzvot, and he is not liable for an unwitting act alone, but only

when there is unawareness of a matter

together with an unwitting act.

And they agree

the Sages and Rabbi that the offering of an anointed priest for idolatry is

a female goat. And they agree

also in this regard

that

the anointed

does not bring

any

conditional guilt-offering [

for the reason that will be explained below].

The Gemara rejects the proof based on the precise wording of the Mishna:

But can you understand it so?

For in the Mishna below [8a], where we learned in the first clause that a court is liable only for

a

matter whose intentional violation is punishable by

karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering,

and “likewise the anointed priest,” while in the latter clause we learned that the same law applies to idolatry: They are liable only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering,

is it taught

there “and likewise the anointed priest,” that in the case of idolatry he is liable only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering [despite this being in fact his law]?

Rather

it must necessarily be said there:

Teach this one,

and since we learned in the first clause of the Mishna that they are liable only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering, and likewise the anointed priest, it is consequently known to us that

the same law applies to this one,

that the anointed priest has the same law as the community, and even in the case of idolatry he is liable only for a matter whose intentional violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation requires a sin-offering.

If so,

here,

in our Mishna

the tanna likewise taught

in the first clause, regarding the other mitzvot,

this one,

that the anointed priest has the same law as the community, and both are liable to bring a bull only for unawareness of a matter together with an unwitting act,

and

consequently it is known to us that

the same law applies to this one,

that the anointed priest is like the community also in the case of idolatry, and there too they are liable only for unawareness of a matter together with an unwitting act.

If so, there is no basis for inferring that our Mishna follows Rabbi from the fact that the Mishna did not repeat that in the case of idolatry as well, the law of the anointed priest differs from that of the court. For the first clause relied on the latter clause. It is possible that our Mishna follows the Sages, who likewise hold that an anointed priest is liable for idolatry only for an unwitting act together with unawareness of a matter.

The Gemara asks:

What is Rabbi’s reason

for distinguishing, with regard to the offering of an anointed priest, between idolatry and the other mitzvot? After all, one can derive by means of a gzera shava that the anointed priest was equated with the community in every respect.

And it answers:

The verse states

with regard to idolatry: “

And the priest shall atone for the person who errs in his sin unwittingly.”

And we interpret it: “

The person”—

this is the anointed priest.

“Who errs”—

this is the leader.

“In his sin unwittingly”

Rabbi holds

that the intent of the verse is to say:

This sin,

the sin that the anointed priest or the leader committed in the case of idolatry,

unwittingly

through an act, even without a ruling of the court,

shall be

liable for it.

And the Sages hold

that the intent of the verse is to say:

One whose sin-offering

for the other mitzvot is

for an unwitting act

alone [that is, an ordinary individual who sinned] shall bring a female goat for his sin in the case of idolatry;

the anointed priest, whose sin-offering is not

for the other mitzvot

for an unwitting act

alone—for an anointed priest is exempt for an unwitting act by itself, and is liable only

when there is unawareness of a matter

that joins it—therefore, if he sinned in the case of idolatry through an unwitting act alone, he is entirely exempt from an offering.

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the continuation of the beraita: “

And they agree

the Sages and Rabbi

that

an anointed priest who sinned in the case of idolatry has the law of

a female goat”—

like an ordinary individual!

From where do we know

this?

For the verse states: “And if one person”—

one ordinary individual, one leader, and one anointed priest are all included in the category of “one person,”

and the verse makes clear that his offering is a female goat!