Horayot

The Master said, 'An anointed High Priest brings a bullock and does not bring an asham talui.' Whence is it deduced that he does not bring an asham talui? — For it is written,  And the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,  [which shows that] only he whose sin and error are alike  [brings an asham talui], but not  an anointed High Priest whose error and sin are not alike, for it is written, So as to brine guilt upon the people  which shows  that an anointed High Priest is like the congregation.  Did he not, however, speak at that point  [on the assumption that]. So as to bring guilt upon the people  had not been written!  — But [the fact is that the mention of] guilt offering  is irrelevant MISHNAH. IF [THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] GAVE [AN ERRONEOUS] DECISION ALONE  AND ACTED [ACCORDINGLY] ALONE, HE MAKES HIS ATONEMENT ALONE.  IF HE GAVE HIS RULING TOGETHER WITH [THE COURT OF] THE CONGREGATION AND ACTED ACCORDINGLY TOGETHER WITH THE CONGREGATION, HE MAKES HIS ATONEMENT TOGETHER WITH THE CONGREGATION. THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE  UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL PART OF A COMMANDMENT AND TO RETAIN A PART OF IT; AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE HIGH PRIEST. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] FOR IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL THE LAW IN PART AND TO RETAIN IT IN PART. GEMARA. Whence are these laws  derived? — [From that] which our Rabbis taught; It might have been assumed that if he  ruled together with [the court of] the congregation and acted together with the congregation he must bring a bullock independently, this being arrived at by the following argument: A ruler is excluded from the law relating to an individual  and an anointed High Priest is excluded from the law relating to an individual; [if the argument — then, be advanced that] as a ruler, if he committed a sin alone, brings his offering alone and if he committed the sin together with the congregation he makes atonement together with the congregation, so in the case of a High Priest, if he sinned alone he must bring a sin offering alone, and if he sinned together with the congregation he must make his atonement together with the congregation, [it can be retorted] no; if this  applies to the ruler who makes his atonement together with the congregation on the Day of Atonement, must it also apply to an anointed High Priest who does not make his atonement together with the congregation on the Day of Atonement! Consequently, since his atonement is not made together with the congregation on the Day of Atonement it might have been assumed that he must bring a bullock as a sin offering independently, hence it was expressly stated, For his sin which he hath sinned;  how [is this to be understood]? If he sinned alone he brings his sin offering alone, and if he sinned together with the congregation he makes his atonement together with the congregation. How is this  to be imagined? It [sic, If] it be suggested, that he is a mufla  and they  are not mufla'in,  is it not obvious that he must make his atonement alone since their ruling has no legal force  and every individual  must bring a lamb or a goat!  And if [it be suggested] that they are mufla'in and he is not a mufla,  why should he make his atonement alone? His ruling, surely, has no legal force!  —