Torah Community Connections

Week 140 - Sunday - 28 July 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 5

They are not liable on account of the voice of adjuration, the uttered oath, or ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things; similarly the' ruler - so Rabbi Yose HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva said: the ruler is liable for all of these except for the voice of adjuration, for the king can neither judge nor be judged; he cannot testify, nor can one testify against him.

Kehati

We have learned in the preceding mishnah that the Bet Din are not liable for a communal offering, if they decide mistakenly on a subject involving a graded offering (oleh veyored - ascending and descending in value), as stated: “They are not liable for the positive commandment or prohibition concerning the Temple." Our mishnah enumerates all the transgressions for which a graded offering has to be brought. These are: 1. The oath of testimony which is termed in our mishnah "the voice of adjuration” (see Shev. 4:1-3), from the text (Lev. 5:1) "If any one sin in having heard the voice of adjuration, being a witness, having seen or known." 2. An uttered oath (see Shev. 3:7), as it is written (Lev. 5:4) "Or if any one swear, uttering with his lips to do evil or good, or whatever a man shall utter with an oath." 3. Ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things (Shev. 2:1) as it is written (Lev. 5:23) “Or a person who has touched anything unclean... and it be hid from him and he is unclean and guilty," meaning a ritually unclean person who, unaware of his impurity (i.e. he forgot that he was unclean) entered the Temple, or ate sacred meat. For all three transgressions, if the Bet Din mistakenly gave a wrong decision, they are not liable for a communal offering, for they do not involve a regular sin-offering, but a graded offering. Rashi explains that this mishnah repeats what we already learned in the previous mishnah in order to inform us of the difference of opinion between Rabbi Yose HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva with respect to the ruler (or king) who transgressed any of the above.

They are not liable - the Bet Din are not obliged to bring the communal offering, On account of the voice of adjuration - that is the oath of testimony. If there were witnesses who possessed evidence in a financial matter, e.g. that A owed B money, and the plaintiff made them swear to come and testify for him, and the Bet Din mistakenly ruled that they need not testify; the uttered oath – if they ruled on a matter of an uttered oath; e.g. a man took an oath that he would not eat (a particular item), and he did eat it, and the Bet Din mistakenly ruled one may transgress an uttered oath; or ritual impurity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things - that the Bet Din erred, permitting an unclean person to enter the sanctuary or partake of sanctified food, - in all these cases, if the people acted on the Bet Din ruling, the Bet Din is not liable for a communal offering, for an individual who transgressed them is not liable for a regular sin-offering, but graded one. Therefore, even though the people erred relying on the Bet Din ruling on these transgressions, they are considered as individual transgressors, each one having to bring the graded offering; similarly the ruler - if he erred in one of the above, he is exempt from an offering, for so it is written in the Torah (Lev. 4,22-23). "If a ruler sins and transgresses one of the commandments of the Lord... if his sin, wherein he sinned, become known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat," and it is explained (below 3:3).

"Who is the ruler? This is the king." From this we learn that if the king transgressed unwittingly, he has to bring a sin-offering of a goat, and his inadvertent act is not dependent on its being his own ruling, as in the case of the anointed priest. He is liable for his unintentional deed alone. (Gemara). But if the king unwittingly transgressed one of the commandments for which the individual is liable for a graded offering, he is exempt from any sacrifice, - so Rabbi Yose HaGelili - for it is written in respect of these transgressions (Lev. 5:7-11) "And if his means do not suffice." This then applies to one who can know poverty, as well as wealth, i.e., only such a person is liable to bring a graded offering (as sometimes he may be poor, sometimes rich). This excludes a king who does not become impoverished, and who therefore cannot be subject to a graded offering; the same is true of the high priest, who is also precluded from bringing a graded offering because he too cannot become impoverished, as it is written (Lev. 21:10) "And the priest that is highest among his brethren," which is interpreted to mean "above his brethren in appearance, power, wisdom and wealth." Others say: whence do we learn that if he has not of his own, enrich him from that which his brother (priests) have? Because it says "And the priest who is highest among his brethren on whose head the anointing oil is poured" (ibid.), and this may be translated as the priest who is greater because of his brethren. (Gemara Hor. 9a).

Rabbi Akiva said: the ruler is liable for all of these for a graded offering. The reason is given by Rambam in his commentary to our mishnah: Because it says regarding the ruler (Lev. 4:26) "And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin"; and similarly regarding the graded offering with respect to the voice of adjuration, uttered oath and ritual purity in respect of the Temple and its hallowed things (Lev. 5:10), the verse says: "And the priest shall atone for him for his sin." This teaches that the ruler is liable for an offering for these transgressions - except for the voice of adjuration - i.e., if he was put under oath to testify, and he did not testify, he is free from an offering - for the king can neither judge, nor be judged, he cannot testify, nor can one testify against him (Sanh. 2:2) which means that there is no obligation on him to testify at all. However, regarding the high priest, Rabbi Akiva agrees that he is free from the graded offering (baraita, Hor. 9a). The reason is explained in the Gemara: because the verse (Lev. 6:13) says "This is the offering of Aaron and his sons... a tenth part of an ephah" - This (i.e. the tenth part of the ephah of the baking-pan meal-offering) is his obligatory offering, but no other (i.e. that the tenth of the ephah of the graded offering is not obligatory for him), and as this is excluded, so are all graded offerings excluded; for it says at the end of the chapter (ibid., 5:13): "And the priest shall make atonement for himself for his sin which he has sinned in any of these" - whoever obtains atonement through any of these, does so from all of them, and whoever does not obtain atonement through one of these does not obtain through any of them.

The Halakhah is neither in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, nor with Rabbi Yose HaGelili. Both the anointed priest and the ruler are liable for a graded offering in the cases of the voice of adjuration, the uttered oath and ritual purity connected with the Temple and its hallowed things, as we shall learn at the conclusion of the chapter (Rambam; Bartenura).

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 2: MISHNAH 6

For all the commandments of the Torah which carry the penalty of karet, if committed willfully, or a sin-offering, if unwittingly, an individual must offer a sheep or a goat; a ruler - a he-goat, and the anointed and Bet Din being a bullock. In the case of idolatry the individual, the ruler and the anointed must offer a she-goat, and the Bet Din - a bullock and a he-goat - the bullock as a burnt offering and the he-goat as a sin-offering.

Kehati

This mishnah summarizes the types of animal offered in cases of unintentional transgression.

For all the commandments of the Torah which carry the penalty of karet, - if committed wilfully, or a sin-offering if unwittingly – as explained above (mishnah 3), an individual must offer a sheep or a goat - females, as it is written (Lev. 4:27-28,32) "And if one of the common people sin in error, committing one of the commandments of the Lord which must not be done and become guilty... he shall bring as his offering a goat, a female without blemish for his sin which he has sinned... and if he bring a lamb as his sin-offering, it shall be a female without blemish?' A ruler brings a he-goat as is written (ibid., 22-23) "If the ruler sin and he did one of the things which the Lord commanded not to be done, and be guilty... he shall bring as his offering a he-goat, a male without blemish," and the anointed and Bet Din - the high priest who erred in his decision and himself acted on it, and similarly the Bet Din who erred in their decision, and the assembly acted on their decision, bring a bullock, for so it is written regarding the high priest (Lev. 4:3) "If the anointed priest sin, bringing guilt to the people, he shall bring for the sin which he has sinned a young bullock without blemish as a sin-offering to the Lord." This is called "the bullock of the anointed one." Regarding the Bet Din it is written (ibid. 13-14) "And if all the congregation err and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they do one of the things which the Lord commanded not to be done, and they be guilty; and when the sin which they have sinned becomes known to them, then the assembly shall bring a young bullock as a sin-offering." This one is known as the "communal bull offering for a law that eluded them" (par he'alem davar), as explained in previous mishnayot.

In the case of idolatry - if they erred in a matter concerning idolatry, the individual, the ruler and the anointed must bring a she-goat - a year old for a sin-offering, as is written (Num. 15:27-29) "And if a person sin in error he shall bring a year-old goat for a sin-offering... the home born among the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells in their midst; there shall be one law for you whoever acts in error." The Torah considers them all equal with respect to this offering, and even the anointed priest who erred in a decision connected with idolatry and acted on this decision, brings the year old goat as a sin offering and the Bet Din, if they inadvertently permitted a forbidden act of idolatry, and the people acted upon their ruling, must bring a bullock and a he goat, the bullock as a burnt offering, and the he-goat as a sin-offering as is written (ibid, 24) "And if it be hid from the eyes of the congregation and it be done in error, then the congregation shall bring a young bullock as a burnt offering.., and a he-goat for a sin-offering," as explained in the first chapter (see mishnah 5).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives