'And both also agree that he does not bring an asham talui'. Whence is this deduced? — From the Scriptural text. And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed.1 Rabbi is of the opinion [that only] he whose 'sin'2 depends entirely on error in action3 [brings such a guilt offering]; a High Priest, however,4 whose sin5 does not [invariably] depend entirely on error in action alone but also on ignorance of the law, is excluded. Is it, then, written 'entirely'?5 — [Virtually] Yes; for otherwise6 it should have been written, 'Concerning his error'; what need was there for which he committed! Its object, consequently, must be, to teach us that [there is no obligation] unless all one's sin7 is dependent on error in action.8 And the Rabbis?9 — Only he whose sin7 depends on error in action alone [is liable]; an anointed High Priest, however, is excluded since his sin7 does not depend on error in action alone, either in idolatry or in the other commandments, but on ignorance of the law together with error in action.
MISHNAH. THE COURT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION10 UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A PROHIBITION11 THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH,12 IF IT WAS TRANSGRESSED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF TRANSGRESSED UNWITTINGLY; AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A MATTER THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH, IF IT WAS COMMITTED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY.
GEMARA. Whence is this deduced? — From the following.13 Rabbi said: Here14 it is stated 'aleha,15 and further on16 it is stated 'aleha;17 as further on16 the prohibition involves the penalty of kareth,18 if it was transgressed wilfully, and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so14 here also, [the ruling must be concerning] a prohibition which involves the penalty of kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.
Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation, whence that of the anointed High Priest? — So as to bring guilt upon the people19 shows20 that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation.
As to a ruler? — The inference is made by a comparison of 'commandments';21 with 'commandments' in respect to a ruler it is written, And doeth [through error] any one of all the commandments which the Lord,22 and in respect of the congregation it is written, And do any of the commandments,23 as the [obligation of the] congregation relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so also the obligation of a ruler relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.
NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED etc. Whence [is this law deduced] in regard to idolatry? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: From the fact that idolatry was singled out26 it might have been assumed that, [in regard to it] obligation is incurred even in respect of a prohibition which does not involve kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly,27 hence it was stated here, From the eyes28 and elsewhere it was stated, From the eyes.29 as there obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly, so here also obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly.
Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation. whence that of an ordinary individual, a ruler or an anointed High Priest? — Scripture stated, And if one person.30 [which implies that] there is no distinction between a private individual, a ruler, or an anointed High Priest. All of then, are included in the general expression of one person, and the latter may be deduced from the former.31
[This explanation] is satisfactory in accordance with the view of him who employed32 the expression of 'aleha for an analogical purpose, as stated above; whence, however, do the Rabbis, who employed 'aleha in connection with the laws of incest and rival wives,33 deduce that obligation is incurred only where the prohibition involves kareth when it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly? — They deduce it from that which R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error. But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand etc.,34 all the commandments of the Torah were compared to the prohibition of idolatry;35 as in regard to idolatry obligation is incurred only where the offence involves the punishment of kareth when it was committed wilfully, and a sin offering when committed unwittingly, so also here obligation is incurred only where the offence involves kareth when committed wilfully and a sin offering when committed unwittingly.
Proof has thus been found36 for the case of a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest both in regard to idolatry and the rest of the commandments; whence, however, [is it proved that the same applies to the] congregation? The former37 is deduced from the latter.38
As to Rabbi,39 what does he do with R. Joshua b. Levi's text? He applies it to the following:40 Since we find that Scripture made a distinction41 between a majority and individuals, a majority being punished by the sword and their money destroyed42 while individuals are punished by stoning and their money is spared.43 it might have been assumed that a distinction should also he made in respect of their sacrifices,44 hence45 it was expressly stated, Ye shall have one law etc.46
R. Hilkiah of Hagronia47 demurred: is the reason48 because Scripture did not differentiate in this respect, but had it differentiated it would have been suggested that a distinction should be made [in respect of their sacrifices]? What, however, could they49 bring! Should they bring a bullock? The congregation, surely, brings a bullock for the infringement of any of the other commandments!50 Should they bring a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering? The congregation, surely, brings such offerings in respect of idolatry!51 Should they bring a goat? A ruler, surely, brings such an offering in the case of his transgression of any of the other commandments!51 Should they bring a goat? This, Surely, is also the sacrifice of an individual!51 — It52 is required; because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation brings a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering, these53 should reverse the procedure and bring a bullock for a sin offering and a goat for a burnt offering. Or [the meaning54 may be]; It might have been assumed to be necessary55 and that consequently there is no remedy for them,56 hence it was taught [that there was no such necessity].55
All,57 at any rate, agree that if these verses were written [for any purpose at all] they were written for that of idolatry; but what is the proof? Raba, (others say R. Joshua b. Levi, and again others say, Kadi), replied: Scripture says; And when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments.58 Now, which is the commandment that is as weighty as all other commandments? Surely59 it is that concerning idolatry.
The School of Rabbi60 taught; Scripture Says, Which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,61 and it is also written That the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses.62 Now, which is the commandment that was given in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, and also by the hand of Moses? Surely63 it is that of idolatry; for R. Ishmael recited; [The words] I64 and Thou shalt not have65 were heard66 from the mouth of Omnipotence.67
The School of R. Ishmael taught:
Horayoth 8bFrom the day that the Lord gave commandments, and onward throughout your generations;1 which is the commandment that was spoken at the very beginning?2 Surely3 it is that of idolatry.4 But did not a Master state that Israel was given ten commandments at Marah!5 — But6 the best proof is that given at first.7
MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING A SIN OFFERING] FOR THE TRANSGRESSION8 OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY; NOR [DOES ANYONE]9 BRING AN ASHAMTALUI10 FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY. THEY11 ARE LIABLE, HOWEVER,12 FOR THE TRANSGRESSION13 OF A POSITIVE, OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT; AND [ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS] BRING AN ASHAM TALUI FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT. WHICH IS THE POSITIVE COMMANDMENT CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT? [THE COMMANDMENT]. SEPARATE THYSELF FROM THE MENSTRUANT.14 AND THE NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT? — DO NOT COME IN UNTO THE MENSTRUANT.15
GEMARA. Whence is it deduced16 that elsewhere17 the congregation is not liable to bring a sacrifice and that an individual also is not liable to bring an asham talui?18 — R. Isaac b. Abdimi replied: Scripture said, And he is guilty in connection with a sin offering19 and an asham talui,20 and it also said, And they are guilty in connection with the congregation;21 as [the phrase] 'and he is guilty' in connection with an individual refers to the fixed sin offering22 So And are guilty, said in connection with the congregation, also refers to the fixed sin offering, and, furthermore, as the congregation brings only the fixed sin offering, so is the asham talui23 brought only in the case of doubt in respect of one's liability to the fixed sin offering.24 If so, the same law should also apply to a sliding scale sacrifice,25 for Surely it is written, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things?26 — Deduction may be made from the analogy between 'is guilty' and 'are guilty', but no deduction may be made from an analogy between 'is guilty' and 'he shall be guilty'.
But what is the difference? The School of R. Ishmael taught. [with reference to the expressions.] The priest shall return27 and The priest shall come28 that 'returning' and 'coming' mean the same thing!29 Furthermore, let deduction be made from And he is guilty, said in connection with uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things; for it is written, And [it being hidden from him that] he is unclean and he is guilty!30 — R. Papa replied: An analogy is drawn only between the expressions. And he is guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord [on the one hand],31 and the expressions. And are guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord32 [on the other].33
Said R. Shimi b. Ashi to R. Papa; Then let deduction be made from the analogy between, 'And he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity34 [used in reference to the asham talui] and he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity35 [that occur in connection with sliding scale sacrifices]! — But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Deduction is made from analogy between 'he is guilty', and The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done36 [used in reference to asham talui] and 'they are guilty' and 'The things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done37 [that' occur in connection with the congregational sin offering];38 no proof, however, may be adduced from, The hearing of the voice,39 Swearing clearly with the lips,40 and uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things,41 concerning 'which it has not been said, 'he is guilty' and 'The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done'.
MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING AN OFFERING] FOR [AN ERRONEOUS RULING RELATING TO] THE HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION].42 FOR SWEARING CLEARLY WITH THE LIPS43 AND FOR UNCLEANNESS RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS;44 AND THE RULER IS SIMILARLY [EXEMPT]; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JOSE THE GALILEAN. R. AKIBA SAID; THE RULER IS LIABLE45 IN THE CASE OF ALL THESE EXCEPT THAT OF HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION], BECAUSE THE KING46 MAY NEITHER JUDGE NOR BE JUDGED, NEITHER MAY HE GIVE EVIDENCE NOR MAY EVIDENCE BE TENDERED AGAINST HIM.47
GEMARA. 'Ulla said: What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture said, And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things;48 whoever is subject to liability for every one of these is liable for any of them, and whosoever is not subject to liability for every one of these is not liable for any of them.49
Might not this50 be suggested to imply that liability is incurred for one51 even where a person is not subject to liability for all!52 — But the following is the source from which53 R. Jose the Galilean derives his reason. It was taught: R. Jeremiah54 used to say, it was stated in the Scriptures,
- To Next Folio -