Horayot

Abaye proposed to say that IF [THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] GAVE [AN ERRONEOUS] DECISION  ALONE AND ACTED [AC CORDINGLY] ALONE, is to be understood  [as referring to a High Priest and a court] who live  in two different places and ruled respectively concerning two different prohibitions. Raba, however, said to him; Is then diversity of domicile  the determining factor? [Surely not]; but even if they dwell' in the same place. so long as they ruled concerning two different prohibitions, he  is regarded as having sinned alone. It is obvious that if he  [transgressed  in respect of the prohibition] of Suet and they  in respect of idolatry. he [is regarded as] having sinned alone, because these prohibitions are distinct in origin  and distinct in respect of sacrifices, he  bringing a bullock and they  a bullock and a goat.  so that they bring, in addition, a goat and he does not bring one; and much more so  if he transgressed in respect of idolatry and they in respect of suet, since these prohibitions are entirely distinct in respect of their sacrifices, he having to bring a goat  and they a bullock; what, however, is the law where he transgressed in respect of the forbidden fat of the entrails and they in respect of the forbidden fat of the small bowels? Is it assumed that, though they are alike in respect of sacrifices, they are nevertheless, being derived from two different Biblical texts, to be regarded as distinct in their origins  or, perhaps, since the designation of 'fat' is the same [in both cases, they are regarded as one]. If some reason could be found for the assumption  that [since] the designation of 'fat' is the same [in both cases, they are to be regarded as one], what is the law, [it may be asked], where he  transgressed in respect of suet and they  in respect of blood? Is it assumed [that these are distinct prohibitions since] they are distinct in their origins, or, perhaps. since they are alike in respect of sacrifices, [they are to be regarded as one] the determining factor being the sacrifice?  — This remains undecided. THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL PART OF A COMMANDMENT AND TO RETAIN A PART OF IT etc. Whence is it derived that [they are not liable] UNLESS THEY RULED TO ANNUL PART OF A COMMANDMENT AND TO RETAIN A PART OF IT? — As it has been said in the preceding  chapter; And a thing be hid,  i.e. 'a thing' but not an entire principle. AND SO IT IS WITH THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. Whence is this deduced? — [From the text] wherein it is written, So as to bring guilt upon the people,  which shows  that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] FOR IDOLATRY etc. Whence is this derived? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: From the fact  that idolatry was singled out  it might have been assumed that only the uprooting of the entire principle involves the bringing of a sacrifice,  hence it was stated here, from the eyes  and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes,  as elsewhere the court is meant  so here also the court was meant;  and as further on only a think  [was hid]  but not an entire principle so here also  a part only, not an entire principle, must have been annulled. MISHNAH. THE OBLIGATION [UPON THE COURT TO BRING A SACRIFICE]  IS INCURRED ONLY WHERE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION, AND SO [IT IS WITH THE] ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST; NOR [DO THEY INCUR OBLIGATION] IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY UNLESS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION. GEMARA. Whence is this  deduced? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: They err  might have been assumed to imply obligation for error in action, hence it was stated, They err and a thing be hid,  indicating that no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action. AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. Whence is this deduced? — From the Scriptural text, So as to bring guilt upon the people.  which shows  that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation. NOR [DO THEY INCUR OBLIGATION] IN THE CASE OF IDOLATRY UNLESS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW WAS ACCOMPANIED BY ERROR IN ACTION. Whence is this derived? — [From what] our Rabbis taught: In view of the fact that the prohibition of idolatry was singled out it might have been assumed that obligation is incurred even for error in action, hence it was stated here, from the eyes,  and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes.  [to indicate that] as further on no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action so here also no obligation is incurred unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by error in action. Since the anointed High Priest was not mentioned  in connection with idolatry, our Mishnah must represent the view of  Rabbi. For it was taught: [As to the obligation to bring a sacrifice on the part of] an anointed High Priest in the case of idolatry, Rabbi said, [it depends] on his error in action, and the Sages said, [only if this was accompanied] by ignorance of the law. Both, however, agree  that the sacrifice he brings is a goat, and both also agree  that he does not bring an asham talui.  Consider, however, [this point]; Has [the anointed High Priest] been specified  in connection with [the offence] concerning which the punishment is kareth, if it was committed wilfully, and a Sin offering if committed unwittingly?  And yet it must be admitted  that though he was mentioned in the one case  the same law applies to the other,  so here also  he was mentioned in the first case  and the same law applies to the second. What is Rabbi's reason? — Scripture states, And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth through error.  The soul, refers to  the anointed High Priest; that erreth, refers to the ruler; when he sinneth through error, implies, according to  Rabbi, 'this shall be deemed a "sin"  even if due to error in action alone.  But the Rabbis are of the opinion [that the reference is to] him whose sin depends on error in action, the anointed High Priest, however, being excluded, since his 'sin'  does not depend solely on error in action but also on ignorance of the law. 'Both, however, agree that the sacrifice he brings is a goat like [that of any other] individuals' Whence is this deduced? — [From that] which Scripture stated, and if one person,  implying that there is no difference between a private individual, a ruler, or an anointed High Priest. All of then, are included in the general expression of 'one person'.