Yevamot

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;  and we also learnt: [For the unwitting transgression of any] commandment in the Torah the penalty for which, if committed wilfully, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly a sin-offering, the private individual brings a sin-offering of a lamb or a she-goat; the ruler brings a goat; and the anointed High Priest and the Beth din bring a bullock. In the case of idolatry the individual and the ruler and the anointed High Priest bring a she-goat while the Beth din  bring a bullock and a goat, the bullock for a burnt-offering and the goat for a sin-offering. Whence is this deduced? From the following. For our Rabbis taught: When the sin wherein they have sinned is known:  Rabbi said, here  we read 'aleha  and further on  we also read 'aleha;  as further on  the prohibition involves the penalty of kareth if the transgression was wilful and that of a sin-offering if it was unwitting, so here  also, [the ruling must be concerning] a prohibition which involves the penalty of kareth if the transgression was wilful and that of a sin-offering if it was unwitting. Proof has thus been adduced for the case of the congregation; whence for that of the anointed High Priest? — It is written in relation to the High Priest, So as to bring guilt upon the people;  this shews that the anointed High Priest is like the congregation. And for an individual and a ruler? — The inference is made by a comparison of Things  with Things.  'Nor [are they liable] in respect of idolatry unless [their ruling] concerned a matter the punishment for which is kareth if it was committed wilfully, and a sin-offering if committed unwittingly'. As regards the congregation in the matter of idolatry, deduction  is made by comparison between From the eyes  and From the eyes.  [The law  of] a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest [is deduced] from, And if one soul  which implies that there is no distinction between a private individual, a ruler and an anointed High Priest, while the waw  connects them with the previous subject,  and consequently the latter  may be deduced from the former. Whence, however, do the Rabbis  arrive at this inference?  — They deduce it from the Biblical interpretation which R. Joshua b. Levi taught to 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 Torah is 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 in the case of any other transgression [it must be such] as 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 law applies also to] the congregation in the case of idolatry? — Scripture said, And if one soul,  and the former  may be deduced from the latter.  Whence, however, [is it deduced that the same law applies to] the congregation in the case of the other commandments? — Deduction is made by comparison between 'From the eyes' and 'From the eyes'. And what does Rabbi do with the text of One law?  — He applies it to the following.  Whereas we find that Scripture made distinction between individuals and a group,  individuals being punished by stoning and their money, therefore, being spared, while a group are punished by the sword and their money is consequently destroyed, one might also assume that a distinction should be made in respect of their sacrifices; hence it was explicitly stated, Ye shall have one law. R. Hilkiah of Hagronia  demurred: Is the reason  because the All Merciful has written, Ye shall have one law,  so that had it not so been written it might have been thought 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 transgression of any one of all the other commandments!  [Should they bring] a lamb? An individual, surely, brings a lamb if he transgressed any of the other commandments!  A he-goat? A ruler brings one in the case of transgression of any of the other commandments!  A bullock for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering? Such, surely, are brought by the congregation in the case of idolatry!  Should they, then, bring a she-goat? This, surely, is also the sin-offering of a private individual!  — [The text]  was required, because it might have been suggested that whereas the congregation, in the case of an erroneous ruling, brings a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering, these  should also bring the same sacrifices, but] in the reverse order;  or [it might have been assumed to be] necessary  but that there was no remedy;  hence it was necessary to teach us. Said Levi to Rabbi: What ground is there for stating  FIFTEEN? Sixteen should have been stated! — The other replied: It seems to me that this man has no brains in his head. 'Do you mean', he continued, 'a man's mother who had been outraged by his father?  The case of a man's mother who has been outraged by his father is a matter in dispute between R. Judah and the Rabbis,  and the author of our Mishnah does not deal with any controversial matter'. But does he not? Surely, the prohibition due to a Rabbinical ordinance and the prohibition due to the levir's sanctity,  concerning which R. Akiba and the Rabbis are in dispute,  are mentioned! — We mean, in our chapter. But, surely it was taught,  'Beth Shammai permit rivals to the other brothers and Beth Hillel prohibit them'!  — The view of Beth Shammai where it is in contradiction to that of Beth Hillel is of no consequence. Is there not the case of the wife of a man's brother who was not his contemporary.