Torah Community Connections

Week 139 - Friday - 26 July 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 1

If the anointed priest made a decision for himself unwittingly, and acted on it unwittingly, he must offer a bullock; unwittingly, but acted deliberately; deliberately, but acted inadvertently, he is exempt, for the decision of the anointed priest with respect to himself, is as the decision of the Bet Din with respect to the community.

Kehati

It is written in the Torah (Lev. 4:3) "If the anointed priest sin to the guilt of the people, he shall offer for his sin which he has sinned a young bullock without blemish as a sin-offering to the Lord." The Sages explained that this verse refers to the high priest, who is anointed with the anointing oil, who erred in his teaching and permitted himself a transgression which if committed deliberately, carries the penalty of karet, and if inadvertently a sin-offering. In such a case, if he sinned by acting in accordance with his decision, he is liable to offer a bullock called the ‘bullock of the anointed,' (see 3:6) or 'a bullock offered for all trespasses,' (see 3:4). And so they interpreted it in a baraita in the Gemara (Hor. 7a): "for the guilt of the people" - this teaches that the anointed is likened to the public. As the public is not liable (to offer a bullock, as we learned in the preceding chapter), unless there is an eluded point of law, as well as an inadvertent action (i.e. the Bet Din erred in this decision, because a certain law eluded them, and the majority of the people acted on their ruling unwittingly), so also the anointed is not liable (to bring a bullock) except for an eluded matter of law, followed by an inadvertent action (i.e. the law eluded him, and he acted on his own mistaken ruling). The Sages further established (ibid., 8a): In the same way as the public is not liable, except where the ruling was on a law which, if contravened deliberately, is punishable by karet and, if inadvertently, - by a sin-offering, - so also the anointed is not bound to bring an offering, unless he rules on a law involving karet or a sin-offering, depending whether the transgression was deliberate or inadvertent.

The first three mishnayot of the current chapter deal with the laws concerning the anointed priest, based on the rule concluding this mishnah that ‘the decision of the anointed priest with respect to himself is as the decision of the Bet Din with respect to the community.' There is, however, one difference between the public and the anointed. If the public acted inadvertently on a deliberate misjudgement of the Bet Din, they do not bring the communal offering of the bullock, but each individual who transgressed brings a sin-offering of a sheep or goat, (see 1:4), but the anointed priest, if he deliberately made a wrong ruling for himself, but in the event his transgression was inadvertent, he is exempt from any offering, for they interpreted (Hor. 11a): "And if one of the common people" (Lev. 4:27) - as excluding the anointed priest, who does not bring a sacrifice for his inadvertent misdeed alone.

If the anointed priest - the high priest anointed with the anointing oil, made a decision for himself - permitting himself an action for which one would be liable to karet, if committed deliberately, and a sin-offering, if done inadvertently. The Gemara specifies that he must be an expert authority and fit to judge; unwittingly, and acted on it unwittingly - he erred in his ruling and, relying upon it, acted on it, in a way similar to the case of the Bet Din which erroneously permitted an action, and the public erred by their ruling, - he must offer a bullock for a sin-offering, as stated in the Torah (Lev. 4:3). The Gemara explains that, even if when doing the action he had forgotten the reason why he had permitted it, but said: I am doing so on the strength of my ruling, he is considered an errant and must offer a bullock. Unwittingly, but acted deliberately, - he erred in his ruling, but, having forgotten it, he committed the act deliberately without reference to his ruling; deliberately, but acted inadvertently - he deliberately permitted himself a matter he knew to be forbidden, but in actuality committed it unintentionally. For example, he decided to permit himself the consumption of forbidden fat, but when he actually ate it he made a mistake and ate it thinking that it was ordinary (permitted) fat, - he is exempt from bringing any offering, for the decision of the anointed priest with respect to himself is as the decision of the Bet Din with respect to the community. Just as the Bet Din is not liable for a communal offering of a bull, unless both the ruling and the implementation were inadvertent, as we learned above (1:4): "If the Bet Din gave a wrong decision unwittingly, and all the congregation acted unwittingly, they must offer a bullock," but if they ruled wantonly and the people acted unwittingly, or they ruled unwittingly, and the people acted wantonly, they are not subject to a communal offering of a bullock, - so also the anointed priest is not liable for a sacrifice for his own action, unless both the decision and the implementation were made in error.

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 2

If he decided for himself and acted by himself, he makes his atonement for himself. If he decided with the congregation and acted with the congregation, he makes his atonement with the congregation. For the Bet Din is not liable, unless they rendered a decision annulling part and sustaining part: so also the anointed; nor in the case of idolatry, unless they gave a ruling annulling part and sustaining part.

Kehati

This mishnah deals with the difference between a decision given by the anointed priest alone, and one given by him with the Sanhedrin.

If he - the anointed priest - decided for himself - mistakenly permitting for himself, - and acted by himself -, mistakenly, in accordance with his decision, he makes his atonement for himself - by bringing a bullock to atone for his transgression, as we learned in the preceding mishnah, but - if he decided with the congregation, if the anointed priest made his decision together with the Sanhedrin, i.e. both he and the Sanhedrin erred in their ruling, permitting something forbidden, - and he acted with the congregation, - relying on this decision, he makes his atonement with the congregation, through the communal offering of a bullock, and he need not offer a bullock for himself, since he too relied on the Bet Din ruling. The baraita in the Gemara (Hor. 7a) derives this from the passage concerning the anointed priest (Lev. 4:3) "And he shall offer for his sin which he has sinned" - he sinned by himself he brings for himself, but if he sinned with the congregation, he finds his atonement with the congregation.

For the Bet Din is not liable unless they rendered a decision annulling part and sustaining part, - as explained above (1:3), so also the anointed priest, his decision for himself is like the Court's decision for the people, so that he is not obliged to offer a bull, unless his ruling annulled part and sustained part. Some commentators say that the passage "for the Bet Din is not liable etc.” explains the reason for the previous statement viz., why is it that the anointed priest can find atonement with the congregation, if he rendered a decision together with the congregation, because in many respects he is likened to the Bet Din, for the Bet Din is not liable, unless their ruling annulled only part and sustained part, so also the anointed etc.; and since the anointed has been compared to the Bet Din, if he decided together with the congregation and acted with the congregation, he obtains his atonement with the congregation (Rashi, Bartenura).

Other commentators maintain that this passage stands on its own, as if it said "and the Bet Din is not liable" (Tosefot HaRosh; Tosefot Yom Tov). Melekhet Shelomo quotes Rabbi Joseph Ashkenazi's view that this statement refers to the concluding passage of the preceding mishnah "for the decision of the anointed priest with respect to himself is as the decision of the Bet Din with respect to the community," on which our mishnah elucidates "that the Bet Din is not liable, unless they rendered a decision annulling part and sustaining part,” and the same applies to the anointed; and so it is with other matters as we learn in the following mishnah. Nor in the case of idolatry - if the Bet Din erroneously gave a decision permitting a prohibition connected with idolatry, or the anointed priest made such a decision for himself, they are not liable for an offering, as explained later in mishnah 6 (the Bet Din - a bullock and he-goat; the anointed priest - a goat), unless they gave a decision annulling part and sustaining part. - If, for example, they said bowing down to an idol by prostrating hands and feet is forbidden, but bowing down without prostrating is permissible, as we explained above (1:3). The reason is explained in the Gemara: It says concerning all commandments (Lev. 4:13) "And a thing be hidden from the eyes of the congregation," and concerning idol worship it says (Num. 15:24) "Then if it shall done in error being hidden from the eyes of the congregation," - just as in the case of all commandments, 'a thing,' but not the entire principle eluded them (see 1:3), so it is also with idolatry (Hor. 7b).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives