Horayot

'And both also agree that he does not bring an asham talui'. Whence is this deduced? — From the Scriptural text. And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed.  Rabbi is of the opinion [that only] he whose 'sin'  depends entirely on error in action  [brings such a guilt offering]; a High Priest, however,  whose sin  does not [invariably] depend entirely on error in action alone but also on ignorance of the law, is excluded. Is it, then, written 'entirely'?  — [Virtually] Yes; for otherwise  it should have been written, 'Concerning his error'; what need was there for which he committed! Its object, consequently, must be, to teach us that [there is no obligation] unless all one's sin  is dependent on error in action.  And the Rabbis?  — Only he whose sin  depends on error in action alone [is liable]; an anointed High Priest, however, is excluded since his sin  does not depend on error in action alone, either in idolatry or in the other commandments, but on ignorance of the law together with error in action. MISHNAH. THE COURT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION  UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A PROHIBITION  THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH,  IF IT WAS TRANSGRESSED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF TRANSGRESSED UNWITTINGLY; AND SO [IT IS WITH] THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED CONCERNING A MATTER THE PUNISHMENT FOR WHICH IS KARETH, IF IT WAS COMMITTED WILFULLY, AND A SIN OFFERING IF COMMITTED UNWITTINGLY. GEMARA. Whence is this deduced? — From the following.  Rabbi said: Here  it is stated 'aleha,  and further on  it is stated 'aleha;  as further on  the prohibition involves the penalty of kareth,  if it was transgressed wilfully, and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so  here also, [the ruling must be concerning] a prohibition which involves the penalty of kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully and that of a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation, whence that of the anointed High Priest? — So as to bring guilt upon the people  shows  that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation. As to a ruler? — The inference is made by a comparison of 'commandments';  with 'commandments' in respect to a ruler it is written, And doeth [through error] any one of all the commandments which the Lord,  and in respect of the congregation it is written, And do any of the commandments,  as the [obligation of the] congregation relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, so also the obligation of a ruler relates to a prohibition involving kareth, if it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly. As to an ordinary individual? — Scripture states, And if any one,  and the latter is inferred from the former. NOR [ARE THEY LIABLE] IN RESPECT OF IDOLATRY UNLESS THEY RULED etc. Whence [is this law deduced] in regard to idolatry? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: From the fact that idolatry was singled out  it might have been assumed that, [in regard to it] obligation is incurred even in respect of a prohibition which does not involve kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly,  hence it was stated here, From the eyes  and elsewhere it was stated, From the eyes.  as there obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly, so here also obligation is incurred only in respect of a prohibition involving kareth when it was transgressed wilfully and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly. Proof has thus been found for the case of the congregation. whence that of an ordinary individual, a ruler or an anointed High Priest? — Scripture stated, And if one person.  [which implies that] there is no distinction between a private individual, a ruler, or an anointed High Priest. All of then, are included in the general expression of one person, and the latter may be deduced from the former. [This explanation] is satisfactory in accordance with the view of him who employed  the expression of 'aleha for an analogical purpose, as stated above; whence, however, do the Rabbis, who employed 'aleha in connection with the laws of incest and rival wives,  deduce that obligation is incurred only where the prohibition involves kareth when it was transgressed wilfully, and a sin offering when transgressed unwittingly? — They deduce it from that which R. Joshua b. Levi taught his son: Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error. But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand etc.,  all the commandments of the Torah were compared to the prohibition of idolatry;  as in regard to idolatry obligation is incurred only where the offence involves the punishment of kareth when it was committed wilfully, and a sin offering when committed unwittingly, so also here obligation is incurred only where the offence involves kareth when committed wilfully and a sin offering when committed unwittingly. Proof has thus been found  for the case of a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest both in regard to idolatry and the rest of the commandments; whence, however, [is it proved that the same applies to the] congregation? The former  is deduced from the latter. As to Rabbi,  what does he do with R. Joshua b. Levi's text? He applies it to the following:  Since we find that Scripture made a distinction  between a majority and individuals, a majority being punished by the sword and their money destroyed  while individuals are punished by stoning and their money is spared.  it might have been assumed that a distinction should also he made in respect of their sacrifices,  hence  it was expressly stated, Ye shall have one law etc. R. Hilkiah of Hagronia  demurred: is the reason  because Scripture did not differentiate in this respect, but had it differentiated it would have been suggested that a distinction should be made [in respect of their sacrifices]? What, however, could they  bring! Should they bring a bullock? The congregation, surely, brings a bullock for the infringement of any of the other commandments!  Should they bring a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering? The congregation, surely, brings such offerings in respect of idolatry!  Should they bring a goat? A ruler, surely, brings such an offering in the case of his transgression of any of the other commandments!  Should they bring a goat? This, Surely, is also the sacrifice of an individual!  — It  is required; because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation brings a bullock for a burnt offering and a goat for a sin offering, these  should reverse the procedure and bring a bullock for a sin offering and a goat for a burnt offering. Or [the meaning  may be]; It might have been assumed to be necessary  and that consequently there is no remedy for them,  hence it was taught [that there was no such necessity]. All,  at any rate, agree that if these verses were written [for any purpose at all] they were written for that of idolatry; but what is the proof? Raba, (others say R. Joshua b. Levi, and again others say, Kadi), replied: Scripture says; And when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments.  Now, which is the commandment that is as weighty as all other commandments? Surely  it is that concerning idolatry. The School of Rabbi  taught; Scripture Says, Which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses,  and it is also written That the Lord hath commanded you by the hand of Moses.  Now, which is the commandment that was given in the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, and also by the hand of Moses? Surely  it is that of idolatry; for R. Ishmael recited; [The words] I  and Thou shalt not have  were heard  from the mouth of Omnipotence. The School of R. Ishmael taught: