הוריות ו׳

הוריות ו׳

אַף חַטָּאת לֹא נֶאֱכֶלֶת.

so too, this sin-offering is not eaten.

כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״הַבָּאִים מֵהַשְּׁבִי הַגּוֹלָה הִקְרִיבוּ [עֹלוֹת] לֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרִים שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר וְגוֹ׳ הַכֹּל עוֹלָה״. הַכֹּל עוֹלָה סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ? אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁחַטָּאת עוֹלָה! אֶלָּא הַכֹּל כָּעוֹלָה: מָה עוֹלָה לֹא נֶאֱכֶלֶת – אַף חַטָּאת לֹא נֶאֱכֶלֶת. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הֱבִיאוּם, וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁעָשׂוּ בִּימֵי צִדְקִיָּהוּ.

Similarly, Rabbi Yosei said that it is stated with regard to those who returned to Zion from Babylonia in the days of Ezra: “The children of the captivity who came out of exile sacrificed burnt-offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, twelve goats as a sin-offering; all this was a burnt-offering unto the Lord” (Ezra 8:35). The question arises: Does it enter your mind to say: “All this was a burnt-offering”? Is it possible that a sin-offering is a burnt-offering? Rather, say: All this was like a burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so too, this sin-offering is not eaten, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: It was as atonement for idol worship that they brought them; and Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It was atonement for the idol worship that they practiced during the days of Zedekiah.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ לְהָנֵי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חַטָּאוֹת כְּגוֹן דְּחָטְאוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים, דְּמַיְיתוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים. אִי נָמֵי דְּחָטְאוּ שִׁבְעָה שְׁבָטִים וּשְׁאָרָא אִינָךְ בִּגְרִירָה. וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, כְּגוֹן דְּחָטְאוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים, דְּמַיְיתוּ אַחַד עָשָׂר שְׂעִירִים וְאִידַּךְ דְּבֵית דִּין. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִין וְלֹא צִבּוּר, שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּחָטְאוּ וַהֲדַר חָטְאוּ וַהֲדַר חָטְאוּ, עַד תְּרֵיסַר זִימְנֵי.

The Gemara clarifies: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda, whose opinion is cited in the mishna, you find liability for these twelve sin-offerings in a case where twelve tribes sinned by engaging in idol worship, as in that case they bring twelve goats. Alternatively, you find liability in a case where seven tribes sinned, and the rest of these tribes that did not sin are drawn after the majority of tribes that sinned and each brings a sin-offering. And according to Rabbi Shimon as well, you find liability for these twelve sin-offerings in a case where eleven tribes sinned, as in that case they bring eleven goats and the other goat is brought by the court. But according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the court brings an offering and the public does not, and only one bull is sacrificed, how do you find this a case of liability to bring twelve offerings? The Gemara answers: It is in a case where they sinned, and then sinned again, and then sinned again, until they sinned twelve times.

וְהָא מַיְיתֵי לְהוּ הָנְהוּ דְּחָטְאוּ!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t those who sinned by engaging in idol worship during the time of Zedekiah and the Babylonian exile already die? How can their descendants bring a sin-offering on their behalf? The status of those animals is that of a sin-offering whose owner has died, which is disqualified from sacrifice on the altar.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כִּי גְּמִירִי חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּמִיתָה – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּיָחִיד, אֲבָל לֹא בְּצִבּוּר, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מִיתָה בְּצִבּוּר. מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרַב פָּפָּא הָא? אִילֵּימָא מִדִּכְתִיב: ״תַּחַת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ יִהְיוּ בָנֶיךָ״, אִי הָכִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָחִיד נָמֵי!

Rav Pappa said: When it is learned as a tradition that the fate of a sin-offering whose owners have died is to allow the animal to die without its being sacrificed, this matter applies specifically with regard to an individual who died but not with regard to a congregation, because there is no death with regard to a congregation; the entity of the congregation remains even when specific members die. The Gemara asks: From where does Rav Pappa derive this? If we say that he derives it from that which is written: “Instead of your fathers shall be your sons” (Psalms 45:17), indicating that as long as the sons are alive it is as though the fathers are alive, then if so, the same should be true even with regard to an individual as well, and sons should be able to sacrifice the sin-offerings of their dead fathers.

אֶלָּא דּוּקְיָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא מִשָּׂעִיר דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, דְּאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: מַיְיתֵי מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְהָא מַיְיתֵי לְהוּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְהָנָךְ דְּפָיְישִׁי הֵיכִי מַיְיתוּ! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּצִבּוּר קְרֵבָה.

Rather, the inference of Rav Pappa is from the goat of the New Moon, as the Merciful One states: Bring those sin-offerings from the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, where the half-shekels contributed by the Jewish people every Adar are stored. But haven’t some of the Jewish people died since Adar? If so, how can those who remain bring a sin-offering if some of the owners of the offering have died? Rather, learn from it that a sin-offering whose owners have died may be sacrificed in the case of a communal offering.

מִי דָּמֵי? שָׂעִיר דְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, דִּלְמָא לָא מַיְיתוּ מִצִּבּוּר, אֲבָל הָכָא וַדַּאי מַיְיתוּ! אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּרַב פָּפָּא מֵהָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּפֵּר לְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר פָּדִיתָ ה׳״ – רְאוּיָה כַּפָּרָה זוֹ שֶׁתְּכַפֵּר עַל יוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר פָּדִיתָ״.

The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? In the case of the goat of the New Moon, perhaps no one from the public died in the interim. But here, in the case of those who returned to Zion from Babylonia, those who engaged in idol worship in the days of Zedekiah certainly died, as many years have passed since then. Rather, the reason for the opinion of Rav Pappa is from here, as it is written in the confession recited by the Sages during the rite of the heifer whose neck is broken: “Atone for Your people Israel whom You have redeemed, Lord” (Deuteronomy 21:8). This atonement is fit to atone even for those who emerged from Egypt, from the fact that it is written: “Whom You have redeemed.” The reference is to those whom God redeemed from Egypt, even though they died long ago.

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם, כּוּלְּהוּ אִיתִינוּן מִגּוֹ דִּמְכַפְּרָה אַחַיִּים, מְכַפְּרָה נָמֵי אַמֵּתִים. אֶלָּא הָכָא מִי הֲווֹ חַיִּים? אִין, הָכִי נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרַבִּים מֵהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְרָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת וְגוֹ׳״.

The Gemara asks: Are these matters comparable? There, in the case of the heifer whose neck is broken, all the residents of the city on whose behalf the rite was performed are present when they perform the rite, and since it atones for the living, it also atones for the dead. But here, in the case of those returning from Zion, are any of the people who worshipped idols during the time of Zedekiah alive when the offering is sacrificed? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that there were people from that period still alive, as it is written: “Many of the priests and Levites and heads of patrilineal houses, the elders that had seen the first house standing on its foundation, wept with a loud voice when this house was before their eyes. And many shouted aloud for joy” (Ezra 3:12).

וְדִלְמָא מוּעָטִין הֲווֹ וְלָא רַבִּים הֲווֹ! הָכְתִיב: ״(וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ בְּקוֹל) [וְאֵין הָעָם מַכִּירִים קוֹל] תְּרוּעַת הַשִּׂמְחָה לְקוֹל בְּכִי הָעָם [וְגוֹ׳] וְהַקּוֹל נִשְׁמַע עַד לְמֵרָחוֹק״.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps those elders were few in number, and were not many, and the majority of those present consisted of people who were not alive during the days of Zedekiah. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “And the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people; as the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard far off” (Ezra 3:13)? This indicates that the weeping elders who survived from the era of Zedekiah outnumbered the younger people.

וְהָא מְזִידִין הֲווֹ? הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי – ״אֵילִים תִּשְׁעִים וְשִׁשָּׁה כְּבָשִׂים שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה״, כְּנֶגֶד מִי? אֶלָּא הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה, הָכָא נָמֵי הוֹרָאַת שָׁעָה הָיְתָה.

The Gemara asks: But didn’t those who engaged in idol worship in the era of Zedekiah do so intentionally? Sin-offerings are brought for unwitting, not intentional sins. The Gemara answers: It was a provisional edict issued in exigent circumstances to enable them to sacrifice a sin-offering to atone for an intentional sin. The Gemara comments: So too it is reasonable, as if you do not say so, then with regard to these “ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs,” to what do they correspond? Rather, the sacrifice of those rams and lambs was a provisional edict. Here too, concerning sin-offerings for intentional transgressions, it was a provisional edict.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֵת אֶחָד מִן הַצִּבּוּר – חַיָּיבִין, אֶחָד מִבֵּית דִּין – פְּטוּרִין. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַב, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: בֵּית דִּין מְבִיאִים וְלֹא צִבּוּר, הִלְכָּךְ מֵת אֶחָד מִן הַצִּבּוּר – חַיָּיבִין, דְּהָא קָאֵים כּוּלֵּיהּ בֵּית דִּין, מֵת אֶחָד מִבֵּית דִּין – פְּטוּרִין, דְּהָוְיָא לַהּ חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּת אֶחָד מִן הַשּׁוּתָּפִין, וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי פְּטוּרִין.

§ On a related note, the Sages taught: If the court unwittingly issued a ruling and the congregation performed a transgression on the basis of that ruling, and before the offering was brought one member of the public died, they are liable to bring an offering. If one member of the court died, they are exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who stated this halakha? Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Yirmeya said that Rav said: It is Rabbi Meir, who says: The court, and not the public, brings the offering. Therefore, if one member of the public died the court is liable, as the entire court remains intact. If one member of the court died the court is exempt, as the halakha here is like the halakha of a sin-offering that one of the partners who co-own the offering died, and due to that reason the court is exempt.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וְנוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: בֵּית דִּין עִם הַצִּבּוּר, מֵת אֶחָד מִן הַצִּבּוּר – חַיָּיבִין, דְּאֵין צִבּוּר מֵתִים. מֵת אֶחָד מִבֵּית דִּין – פְּטוּרִין, כִּדְאָמְרִינַן דְּחַטָּאת שׁוּתָּפִין הִיא!

Rav Yosef objects to this: And let us establish this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The court, together with the public, brings the offering. Therefore, if one member of the public died the court is still liable, as the public does not die. But if one member of the court died the court is exempt, in accordance with that which we say, that it is a sin-offering belonging to partners.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: חַטַּאת שׁוּתָּפִין אֵינָהּ מֵתָה, דְּתַנְיָא: פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יִרְעוּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: We heard with regard to Rabbi Shimon that he says: A sin-offering belonging to partners is not left to die, as it is taught in a baraita: In a case where a bull and a goat of Yom Kippur were lost, and one designated other animals in their place, and then the lost animals were found, they shall all be left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall graze until they develop a blemish, due to the fact that a communal sin-offering is not left to die. The bull sacrificed on Yom Kippur belongs to the priests, and is therefore a sin-offering belonging to partners; nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon holds that its status is not that of a bull whose owners died.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: כֹּהֲנִים קָא אָמְרַתְּ? שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, דְּאִיקְּרוּ קָהָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל הַכֹּהֲנִים וְעַל כׇּל עַם הַקָּהָל יְכַפֵּר״.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Priests, you say? Priests are different, as they are characterized as a congregation in and of themselves, as it is written: “And for the priests and for all the people of the congregation he shall atone” (Leviticus 16:33).

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה נַיְיתוֹ פַּר בְּהוֹרָאָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא, הָכִי נָמֵי – טָפִי לְהוּ שְׁבָטִים.

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the priests are characterized as a congregation, let them bring a bull as an unwitting communal offering if they perform a transgression on the basis of the ruling of the court. And if you would say indeed it is so, that is difficult, as the number of tribes has increased to thirteen.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: שִׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל לֵוִי לָא אִיקְּרוּ קָהָל, דִּכְתִיב: ״הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים וְגוֹ׳״. כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֲחוּזָּה – אִיקְּרִי קָהָל, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֲחוּזָּה – לָא אִיקְּרִי קָהָל.

Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ya’akov, said: The tribe of Levi is not characterized as a congregation, as it is written: “Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a congregation of peoples; and I will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 48:4). It is derived from here that any tribe that has an ancestral possession bequeathed to it is characterized as a congregation, and any tribe that does not have an ancestral possession bequeathed to it is not characterized as a congregation. The tribe of Levi has no ancestral land, and the priests who are from the tribe of Levi have no ancestral land.

אִם כֵּן, חָסְרִי לְהוּ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן יִהְיוּ לִי״. אָמַר רָבָא, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״עַל שֵׁם אֲחֵיהֶם יִקָּרְאוּ בְּנַחֲלָתָם״, לְנַחֲלָה הוּקְשׁוּ וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר!

The Gemara challenges: If so, the twelve tribes are lacking in number, as without the tribe of Levi there are only eleven. Abaye said that it is stated: “Ephraim and Manasseh shall be like Reuben and Simeon to me” (Genesis 48:5), and they are counted as two tribes. Rava said: But isn’t it written: “After the name of their brethren shall they be called in their inheritance” (Genesis 48:6), indicating that it is with regard to inheritance that they are likened to tribes, but not with regard to another matter?

וְלָא? וְהָא חֲלוּקִין בַּדְּגָלִים! כְּנַחֲלָתָן כָּךְ חֲנִיָּיתָן, כְּדֵי לְחַלֵּק כָּבוֹד לַדְּגָלִים.

The Gemara challenges: And are they not considered independent tribes concerning other matters as well? But aren’t they separate with regard to the banners under which the Jewish people traveled in the wilderness? There were three tribes represented by each banner, and the three tribes under the banner of Manasseh were Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin. The Gemara answers: In accordance with the division of the tribes according to their inheritances, so was the division of the tribes in their encampment around the Tabernacle. This was in order to honor the banners, so that there would be three tribes affiliated with each banner.

וְהָא חֲלוּקִים בַּנְּשִׂיאִים! הָהוּא, לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לַנְּשִׂיאִים. דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹמֹה עָשָׂה שִׁבְעָה יְמֵי חֲנוּכָּה, וּמָה רָאָה מֹשֶׁה לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר יְמֵי חֲנוּכָּה? כְּדֵי לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לַנְּשִׂיאִים.

The Gemara asks: But aren’t they separate with regard to the matter of princes of the tribes, as the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh had separate princes? The Gemara answers: That was in order to honor the princes, and there is no proof that they are two different tribes with regard to other matters. This is as it is taught in a baraita: Solomon set seven days of dedication of the Holy Temple, and what did Moses see that led him to set twelve days of dedication for the Tabernacle? He did so in order to honor the tribal princes, so that the prince of each tribe would bring his offering on his own day. Due to the honor each prince deserved, Ephraim and Manasseh are considered two tribes.

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ?

The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about Rabbi Shimon’s opinion? Does he hold that a sin-offering brought by several partners is different from a communal sin-offering, as Rav Yosef explained, or does he hold that there is no difference between them, as Abaye explained?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חָמֵשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מֵתוֹת: וְלַד חַטָּאת, וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, וְחַטָּאת שֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר וְלַד חַטָּאת בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין צִבּוּר מַפְרִישִׁין נְקֵבָה. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר תְּמוּרַת חַטָּאת בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין תְּמוּרָה בְּצִבּוּר. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ בְּצִבּוּר, שֶׁאֵין צִבּוּר מֵתִים.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are five sin-offerings that are left to die, as they may not be sacrificed: The offspring of a sin-offering born after its mother was consecrated as a sin-offering; the substitute of a sin-offering, which assumes sacred status but may not be sacrificed; a sin-offering whose owners have died; a sin-offering whose owners’ sin was atoned for with another offering; and a sin-offering whose first year has passed, as a sin-offering may be brought only within the animal’s first year. And you cannot state a case of the offspring of a communal sin-offering, as the congregation does not designate a female as a sin-offering, And you cannot state a case of a substitute of a communal sin-offering, as there is no substitute for a communal offering. And you cannot state a case of a sin-offering whose owners have died in the case of a communal sin-offering, as the public does not die.

שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְשֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ – לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, יָכוֹל יָמוּתוּ? אָמַרְתָּ: יִלְמוֹד סָתוּם מִן הַמְפוֹרָשׁ, מַה מָּצִינוּ בִּוְלַד חַטָּאת וּתְמוּרַת חַטָּאת וְשֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – בְּיָחִיד דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר, אַף שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ וְשֶׁעָבְרָה שְׁנָתָהּ – בְּיָחִיד דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר.

With regard to a sin-offering whose owners’ sin was atoned for and a sin-offering whose first year has passed, we did not hear whether the halakha applies to communal sin-offerings as well. One might have thought they too shall be left to die. You say: One shall derive the vague from the explicit. What did we find with regard to the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners died? We found that these matters are stated only with regard to an individual sin-offering, but not with regard to a communal sin-offering. So too, these matters of a sin-offering whose owners’ sin was atoned for and a sin-offering whose first year has passed are stated only with regard to an individual sin-offering, but not with regard to a communal sin-offering. Likewise, one may derive that an individual’s sin-offering must be left to die, while a sin-offering owned by partners is not left to die.

וְכִי דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּחַד מָקוֹם גְּמִיר.

The Gemara asks: And does one derive the halakha of the possible from the impossible? Some of these cases are by their very nature not relevant to communal sin-offerings. One cannot derive the halakha from them with regard to cases that could be relevant to communal sin-offerings. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon learns all these halakhot of sin-offerings that are left to die as a tradition in one place, i.e., as a single halakha. In cases where not all the categories of sin-offerings left to die apply, no category of sin-offerings that are left to die applies.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ הוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין

מַתְנִי׳ הוֹרָה כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – מֵבִיא פַּר. שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה מֵזִיד, מֵזִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהוֹרָאַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ לְעַצְמוֹ כְּהוֹרָאַת בֵּית דִּין לַצִּבּוּר.

MISHNA: In a case where an anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, issued an erroneous ruling for himself permitting performance of an action prohibited by Torah law, if he issued the ruling unwittingly and then unwittingly performed the transgression in accordance with his ruling, he is liable to bring a bull as a sin-offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest. If he issued the ruling unwittingly, and performed the transgression intentionally, or if he issued the ruling intentionally and performed the transgression unwittingly, he is exempt from liability to bring any offering, as there is a principle: The legal status of the ruling of an anointed priest for himself is like that of the ruling of the court for the general public. Therefore, the High Priest is liable to bring the bull as a sin-offering for his unwitting transgression in a case when the court would be liable to bring the bull as a communal sin-offering for an unwitting transgression performed by the general public.

גְּמָ׳ שׁוֹגֵג וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג – מֵבִיא פַּר. פְּשִׁיטָא!

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling unwittingly and then unwittingly performed the transgression in accordance with his ruling, he is liable to bring a bull. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? This is certainly a case of an unwitting transgression, for which the Torah deems him liable to bring an offering.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹרָה, וְשָׁכַח מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם הוֹרָה, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁטָּעָה אָמַר: הֲרֵינִי עוֹשֶׂה עַל דַּעַת הוֹרָאָתוֹ, דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מִתְיְדַע לֵיהּ, [שֶׁמָּא] הָדַר בֵּיהּ – כְּמֵזִיד דָּמֵי וְלָא לִחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

Abaye said: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he issued an erroneous ruling and forgot the reason that was the basis upon which he issued the ruling, and at the moment that he erred and performed the transgression, he said: I am hereby performing this action with my ruling in mind. As, lest you say: Since if the reason that was the basis upon which he issued the ruling became known to him at that moment, perhaps he would have retracted his ruling, therefore if he nevertheless performed his transgression, his status is like that of an intentional transgressor, and let him not be liable to bring an offering; to counter this, the tanna teaches us that this too is a case of an unwitting transgression.

מֵזִיד וְעָשָׂה שׁוֹגֵג כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם״, הֲרֵי מָשִׁיחַ כְּצִבּוּר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא:

§ The mishna teaches: If he issued the ruling unwittingly, and performed the transgression intentionally, or if he issued the ruling intentionally and performed the transgression unwittingly, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the halakhot unique to the sin-offering for an unwitting transgression by the anointed priest, derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt upon the people” (Leviticus 4:3), from which it is derived that the liability of the anointed priest is incurred like that of the general public. The Gemara discusses this derivation. As one might have thought that the verse is superfluous: Could this not be derived through logical inference?