Torah Community Connections

Week 140 - Monday - 29 July 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 7

The individual and the ruler are subject to the suspensive guilt-offering, but the anointed and the Bet Din are exempt. The individual, the ruler and the anointed are subject to the certain guilt-offering, but the Bet Din are exempt. The Bet Din are exempt in cases of the voice of adjuration, the uttered oath and ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things, but the individual, the ruler and the anointed are liable, except that the high priest is not liable for ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things, - so Rabbi Shimon. And what do they bring? - a graded offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: The ruler brings a he-goat.

Kehati

Having dealt with the different offerings brought by the individual, ruler, anointed priest and Bet Din for inadvertent transgressions, this mishnah explains their differing liabilities with regard to suspensive guilt-offerings, certain guilt-offerings, and the graded offering.

The individual and the ruler are subject to the suspensive guilt-offering, - that is to say the same procedure applies to both in that either of them has to bring a suspensive guilt-offering, if in doubt whether he transgressed a commandment which involves karet, if committed deliberately, and a regular sin-offering, if inadvertently, as explained in the fourth mishnah, but the anointed and the Bet Din are exempt - if the Bet Din were in doubt whether they had issued an erroneous ruling, which the people followed, they are exempt from the suspensive guilt-offering, for with respect to his offering the verse says (Lev. 5:18) "And the priest shall atone for him for his error which he erred but did not know." The Gemara (Hor. 7a) explains that this means when the sin and error are alike; i.e. he is not liable, unless all is done by unwitting act. This excludes the Bet Din, who are only liable in cases of he'alem davar - where a point of law eluded them, followed by inadvertent action. Some infer this from the passage dealing with an error committed by the Bet Din (Lev. 4:14) "And the sin become known"; only when the sin becomes known do they become liable. The same applies to the anointed priest. If he suspected that he may have erred in his ruling, he does not bring a suspensive guilt-offering, for he too is only liable in a case of inadvertent wrong-ruling, and he is therefore as the Bet Din.

The individual, the ruler and the anointed are subject to the certain guilt-offering - in the case of a transgression involving the certain guilt-offering an individual, the ruler and anointed priest are all equal, for it says regarding a guilt-offering (Lev. 4:27) "And if a person sin in error," "Person" embraces an individual, a ruler and the anointed (Hor 8a).

The certain-guilt offering is brought in five cases of indubitable transgression: 1. Robbery; having first denied a monetary debt, sworn falsely and subsequently confessed (Lev. 5:21-25). 2. Unlawful use of sacred property; if he misappropriated or benefited from sacred property or removed it from the authority of the Sanctuary (Lev. 5:14-15). 3. Designated bondwoman; if he cohabited with a half-freed bondwoman (one of her two owners having granted her freedom) who was designated to a Hebrew servant (Lev. 19:20-22) 4. Nazarite; if he became ritually unclean during the period of his Nazarite vow. After purifying himself he has to bring the Nazarite guilt-offering (Num. 6:9-12). 5. Leper; after being cured of his leprosy and restored to a ritually clean state (Lev. 14:10-12).

But the Bet Din are exempt - if they gave a contrary decision in one of the above cases, and the people followed their ruling, they are exempt from this offering, for the Bet Din is only liable in cases where the deliberate transgression of which involves karet. No karet is involved in instances involving the guilt-offering hence mistaken decisions of the court do not apply to them.

The Bet Din are exempt in cases of the voice of adjuration, the uttered oath and ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things - for the Bet Din are only liable to bring a communal offering for transgressions involving karet, if deliberate, but a regular sin-offering, if inadvertent. This excludes transgressions calling for graded offering, as explained above (mishnayot 4-5) But the individual, the ruler and the anointed are liable because they are all included in "a person"; except that the high priest is not liable for ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things, - so Rabbi Shimon. His reason is that on the subject of ritual impurity in the Temple it says (Num. 19:20) "And if a person become unclean and does not purify himself, that person shall be cut off from the midst of the public." This applies to one whose sin is treated like that of the public; it excludes the anointed priest, whose sin is not so treated, for the public is liable for inadvertent action only, whilst the anointed priest is liable only if there was an eluded point of law together with inadvertent action. According to Rambam we have here a dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Shimon. According to the Sages, both the ruler and the anointed priest are liable in the case of the voice of adjuration, uttered oath and ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things, whilst according to R. Shimon the high priest is not liable for ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things; so also the ruler is not liable in the case of the voice of adjuration, in accordance with Rabbi Akiva's opinion (see Mishnah 5). Rambam rules that the halakhah is according to the Sages.

And what do they bring? - What offering do the individual, the ruler and the anointed one (according to the First Tanna) bring for these three things? a graded offering - the individual brings an offering he can afford, but king and priest bring an animal, as do the well-to-do, a sheep or a goat.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The ruler brings a he-goat - for ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed thing (Gemara), because this transgression involves karet, if perpetrated deliberately, and in such cases the ruler is liable for a he-goat. However the halakhah is not according to Rabbi Eliezer, because ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things does not involve a regular sin-offering; the ruler, like any other person, has to bring a graded offering, in which all are equal.

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 1

If the anointed priest sinned and afterwards passed from the high priesthood; similarly, if the ruler sinned and afterwards passed from his greatness - the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat.

Kehati

In this mishnah we learn laws governing the anointed priest and the ruler, who were no longer in office after they sinned.

If the anointed priest sinned - he ruled permissively for himself in a matter which if committed deliberately involves karet, if inadvertently a sin-offering, and acted in accordance with his decision - and afterwards passed from the high priesthood - before bringing his sin-offering; similarly, if the ruler sinned - by committing a transgression for which he is liable to offer a he-goat, and afterwards passed from his greatness - i.e., he was removed from the throne, before he brought his offering, the anointed priest brings a bullock and the ruler brings a he-goat - the type of offering being determined by the time of the transgression. Although the anointed priest always brings an offering of a bullock, even if he sinned after ceasing to be a high priest, as we shall see in the following mishnah, the law pertaining to him is stated here in this way for comparison with the law of the ruler, who has to bring a he-goat only if he sinned prior to his removal.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives