Horayot

MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING A SIN OFFERING] FOR THE TRANSGRESSION  OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY; NOR [DOES ANYONE]  BRING AN ASHAMTALUI  FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY. THEY  ARE LIABLE, HOWEVER,  FOR THE TRANSGRESSION  OF A POSITIVE, OR A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT; AND [ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS] BRING AN ASHAM TALUI FOR THE TRANSGRESSION OF A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT RELATING TO THE MENSTRUANT. WHICH IS THE POSITIVE COMMANDMENT CONCERNING THE MENSTRUANT? [THE COMMANDMENT]. SEPARATE THYSELF FROM THE MENSTRUANT.  AND THE NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT? — DO NOT COME IN UNTO THE MENSTRUANT. GEMARA. Whence is it deduced  that elsewhere  the congregation is not liable to bring a sacrifice and that an individual also is not liable to bring an asham talui?  — R. Isaac b. Abdimi replied: Scripture said, And he is guilty in connection with a sin offering  and an asham talui,  and it also said, And they are guilty in connection with the congregation;  as [the phrase] 'and he is guilty' in connection with an individual refers to the fixed sin offering  So And are guilty, said in connection with the congregation, also refers to the fixed sin offering, and, furthermore, as the congregation brings only the fixed sin offering, so is the asham talui  brought only in the case of doubt in respect of one's liability to the fixed sin offering.  If so, the same law should also apply to a sliding scale sacrifice,  for Surely it is written, And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things?  — Deduction may be made from the analogy between 'is guilty' and 'are guilty', but no deduction may be made from an analogy between 'is guilty' and 'he shall be guilty'. But what is the difference? The School of R. Ishmael taught. [with reference to the expressions.] The priest shall return  and The priest shall come  that 'returning' and 'coming' mean the same thing!  Furthermore, let deduction be made from And he is guilty, said in connection with uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things; for it is written, And [it being hidden from him that] he is unclean and he is guilty!  — R. Papa replied: An analogy is drawn only between the expressions. And he is guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord [on the one hand],  and the expressions. And are guilty, and, The commandments of the Lord  [on the other]. Said R. Shimi b. Ashi to R. Papa; Then let deduction be made from the analogy between, 'And he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity  [used in reference to the asham talui] and he is guilty, and, Bearing of iniquity  [that occur in connection with sliding scale sacrifices]! — But, said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Deduction is made from analogy between 'he is guilty', and The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done  [used in reference to asham talui] and 'they are guilty' and 'The things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done  [that' occur in connection with the congregational sin offering];  no proof, however, may be adduced from, The hearing of the voice,  Swearing clearly with the lips,  and uncleanness relating to the Sanctuary and its consecrated things,  concerning 'which it has not been said, 'he is guilty' and 'The thinks which the Lord hath commanded not to be done'. MISHNAH. [THE COURT] ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION [TO BRING AN OFFERING] FOR [AN ERRONEOUS RULING RELATING TO] THE HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION].  FOR SWEARING CLEARLY WITH THE LIPS  AND FOR UNCLEANNESS RELATING TO THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CONSECRATED THINGS;  AND THE RULER IS SIMILARLY [EXEMPT]; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JOSE THE GALILEAN. R. AKIBA SAID; THE RULER IS LIABLE  IN THE CASE OF ALL THESE EXCEPT THAT OF HEARING OF THE VOICE [OF ADJURATION], BECAUSE THE KING  MAY NEITHER JUDGE NOR BE JUDGED, NEITHER MAY HE GIVE EVIDENCE NOR MAY EVIDENCE BE TENDERED AGAINST HIM. GEMARA. 'Ulla said: What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture said, And it shall be when he shall be guilty in one of these things;  whoever is subject to liability for every one of these is liable for any of them, and whosoever is not subject to liability for every one of these is not liable for any of them. Might not this  be suggested to imply that liability is incurred for one  even where a person is not subject to liability for all!  — But the following is the source from which  R. Jose the Galilean derives his reason. It was taught: R. Jeremiah  used to say, it was stated in the Scriptures,