|  |  | Previous Folio / Horayoth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Horayoth ### Folio 7a A congregation, [it might be argued,] is excluded from the law relating to1 an individual and the anointed High Priest is excluded from the law relating to an individual; as the congregation is only liable [to bring a sin offering] where there was ignorance of the law2 together with error in action3 so an anointed High Priest should only be liable where there was ignorance of the law together with error in action! Or it might be argued thus:4 A ruler is excluded from the law relating to an individual5 and an anointed High Priest is excluded from the law relating to an individual; as a ruler brings a sin offering where there was only error in action without ignorance of the law so an anointed High Priest should bring a sin offering where there was error in action without ignorance of the law! — Let us, then, see whom he more resembles. The congregation brings a bullock but does not bring an asham talui6 and an anointed High Priest brings a bullock and does not bring an asham talui;7 as the congregation is liable to a sin offering only where there was ignorance of the law together with error in action so an anointed High Priest should be liable only where there was ignorance of the law together with error in action! Or argue thus: A ruler brings a goat for the sin of idolatry8 and also brings an asham waddai9 and an anointed High Priest brings a goat for idolatry and also an asham waddai; as a ruler brings a sin offering where there was error in action only10 so the anointed High Priest brings a sin offering where there was error in action only. Hence11 it was definitely stated, So as to bring built upon the people12 to show that13 an anointed High Priest is like the congregation; as the congregation bring a sin offering only where there was ignorance of the law together with error in action so the anointed High Priest brings a sin offering only where there was ignorance of the law together with error in action. Since it might be suggested that as [in the case of] a congregation, [if the court] ruled and the congregation acted in accordance with their decision they are liable, so [in the case of] an anointed High Priest where he ruled and they acted in accordance with his ruling he is also liable, it was, therefore, definitely stated, Then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned,14 [which shows that] he brings a sin offering for his own sin15 only, and that he does not bring a sin offering for the sins of others.16 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,17 And the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning the error which he committed,18 [which shows that] only he whose sin and error are alike19 [brings an asham talui], but not20 an anointed High Priest whose error and sin are not alike, for it is written, So as to brine guilt upon the people21 which shows22 that an anointed High Priest is like the congregation.23 Did he not, however, speak at that point24 [on the assumption that]. So as to bring guilt upon the people21 had not been written!25 — But [the fact is that the mention of] guilt offering26 is irrelevant27 MISHNAH. IF [THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] GAVE [AN ERRONEOUS] DECISION ALONE28 AND ACTED [ACCORDINGLY] ALONE, HE MAKES HIS ATONEMENT ALONE.29 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.30 THE COURT IS NOT LIABLE31 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 laws32 derived? — [From that] which our Rabbis taught; It might have been assumed that if he33 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 individual34 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 this35 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;36 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.37 How is this38 to be imagined? It [sic, If] it be suggested, that he is a mufla 39 and they40 are not mufla'in,41 is it not obvious that he must make his atonement alone since their ruling has no legal force42 and every individual 43 must bring a lamb or a goat!44 And if [it be suggested] that they are mufla'in and he is not a mufla,45 why should he make his atonement alone? His ruling, surely, has no legal force!46 — To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Lit., 'general rule', that of bringing a sin offering of a lamb or a goat (Lev. IV. 27ff). The congregation brings a bullock (ibid. 23ff). On the part of the court. On the part of the congregation. Lit., 'finish and go to this way'. Cf. n. 3. A ruler brings a goat as a sin offering (Lev. IV, 22 ff). V. Glos. Such a guilt offering is brought only by an individual when it is doubtful whether he committed a sin. [This cannot apply to a congregation whose offering is limited to a sin through an erroneous decision.] When his sin is in doubt, v. infra. [Cf. Num. XV, 27; 'A soul' includes all-commoners, as well as prince or High Priest.] [H] a guilt offering brought in connection with a number of sins (v. Lev. v, 20 ff) when there is no doubt that the sin had been committed. Cf asham talui in Glos. Though there was no ignorance of the law. As logically it is uncertain with whom the High Priest is to be compared. Lev. IV, 3. Lit., 'behold'. Lev. IV. 3. Lit., 'what he sinned'. Lit., 'what others sinned'. In the case of an asham talui. Lev. V, 18 I.e., an ordinary individual in whose case error in action alone involves him in the obligation of bringing a sin offering as if he was also ignorant of the law. Lit., 'he went out', 'excluded'. Lev. IV, 3. Lit., 'behold'. Before obligation to bring a sin offering is incurred by him, both error in action as well as ignorance of the law are necessary'. Lit., 'until here'; i.e., iii the argument, supra, where it was attempted to show that the High Priest resembles the congregation. Lit., 'he did not say', i.e., if the assumption is that the text had not been written, how can this presumably non-existent text be adduced as proof? The asham talui, v. Glos. Lit., 'he took it without any purpose,' the resemblance between an anointed High Priest and the congregation being their respective obligations to bring a bullock, and not a goat or a lamb, as a sin offering, being in itself sufficient to compare the High Priest to the Congregation. Though the court had at the same time ruled erroneously concerning another prohibition, e.g., he having permitted suet, and they an idolatrous cult, He brings the offering of a bullock on his own behalf. His atonement is effected by the communal offering. So MS.M. reading, [H] [ [H] in cur. edd. is explained by Tosaf. Asheri [H] v. Bezah 8a.] Lit., 'words'; the first two laws in our Mishnah relating to an anointed High Priest. A High Priest. Cf. supra p. 43, n. 6. Lit., 'you said'. That if he sinned together with the congregation be brings his offering together with them. Lev. IV, 3. I.e., be brings an offering alone, only where he alone has sinned. Thus the first two laws in our Mishnah have been proved. That where a High Priest ruled erroneously alone he must bring his sin offering alone, though the court had at the same time ruled erroneously concerning another prohibition, e.g., he having permitted suet, and they an idolatrous rite. [R. Han. explains the question as referring to where he sinned together with the congregation in which case he makes his atonement together with them.] V. Glos. [The term mufla seems here to be used in a loose sense to denote one who is qualified to give decisions, although this would imply that when no qualified scholars were available, the absence of the necessary qualifications would not debar one from acting as judge — v. Tosaf. Asheri, cf. also Tosaf. Sanh. 16b, s.v. [H].] The court who ruled erroneously concerning a prohibition other than that permitted by the High Priest. Plural of mufla. Lit., 'and nothing'. Of the Congregation. V. supra 4b. V. Glos. Lit., 'and nothing'. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Horayoth 7b R. Papa replied; in the case, for instance, where both1 were mufla'in. Abaye proposed to say that IF [THE ANOINTED HIGH PRIEST] GAVE [AN ERRONEOUS] DECISION2 ALONE AND ACTED [AC CORDINGLY] ALONE, is to be understood3 [as referring to a High Priest and a court] who live4 in two different places and ruled respectively concerning two different prohibitions. Raba, however, said to him; Is then diversity of domicile5 the determining factor? [Surely not]; but even if they dwell' in the same place. so long as they ruled concerning two different prohibitions, he6 is regarded as having sinned alone. It is obvious that if he6 [transgressed7 in respect of the prohibition] of Suet and they8 in respect of idolatry. he [is regarded as] having sinned alone, because these prohibitions are distinct in origin9 and distinct in respect of sacrifices, he6 bringing a bullock and they8 a bullock and a goat.10 so that they bring, in addition, a goat and he does not bring one; and much more so11 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 goat12 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 origins13 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 assumption14 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 he6 transgressed in respect of suet and they8 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?15 — This remains undecided.16 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 preceding17 chapter; And a thing be hid,18 i.e. 'a thing' but not an entire principle.19 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,20 which shows21 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 fact22 that idolatry was singled out23 it might have been assumed that only the uprooting of the entire principle involves the bringing of a sacrifice,24 hence it was stated here, from the eyes25 and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes,26 as elsewhere the court is meant27 so here also the court was meant;27 and as further on only a think28 [was hid]26 but not an entire principle so here also29 a part only, not an entire principle, must have been annulled. MISHNAH. THE OBLIGATION [UPON THE COURT TO BRING A SACRIFICE]30 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 this31 deduced? — [From] what our Rabbis taught: They err32 might have been assumed to imply obligation for error in action, hence it was stated, They err and a thing be hid,32 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.33 which shows34 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,35 and elsewhere it was stated, from the eyes.36 [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 mentioned37 in connection with idolatry, our Mishnah must represent the view of38 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, agree39 that the sacrifice he brings is a goat, and both also agree39 that he does not bring an asham talui.40 Consider, however, [this point]; Has [the anointed High Priest] been specified37 in connection with [the offence] concerning which the punishment is kareth, if it was committed wilfully, and a Sin offering if committed unwittingly?41 And yet it must be admitted42 that though he was mentioned in the one case43 the same law applies to the other,44 so here also45 he was mentioned in the first case46 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.47 The soul, refers to48 the anointed High Priest; that erreth, refers to the ruler; when he sinneth through error, implies, according to49 Rabbi, 'this shall be deemed a "sin"50 even if due to error in action alone.51 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'52 does not depend solely on error in action but also on ignorance of the law.53 '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,54 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'. - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files The High Priest and the court. So MS.M. reading [H] Cur. edd.: [H] 'he sinned'. Lit., 'how is it to be imagined'. Lit., 'sit'. Lit., 'two places'. The High Priest. I.e., by erroneous ruling and action. The court. Lit., 'in their reasons', each prohibition being derived from a different Biblical text. Cf. Num. XV, 24. Is the High Priest regarded as having transgressed alone. V. supra p. 43, n. 9, and infra p. 50. V. supra 3a. Lit., 'if you will find to say'. Lit., 'we go after the sacrifice'. Heb., teko, v. Glos. Lit., 'other'. Lev. IV, 23. Supra 4a. Lev. IV, 3. Lit., 'behold'. Lit., 'because'. Lit., 'went out to pass sentence (or 'to judge') separately'. i.e., Scripture did not include the sin of idolatry among the prohibitions for which a bullock is offered (Lev. IV, 13ff) but singled it out for special sacrifices (Num. XV. 22ff). Lit., 'they are liable for'. Num. XV, 24, referring to idolatry. Lev. IV, 13, referring to the other commandments. V. supra 5a. Lit., 'in (or about) the court'. Heb. dabar, [H] read with the addition of the Mem [H] partitive, v. supra p. 21, n. 8. Num. XV, 24, referring to idolatry. V. Lev. IV, 23. The first law in our Mishnah. V. Lev. IV, 13. Lev. IV, 3. Lit., 'behold'. Num. XV, 24, referring to idolatry. Lev. IV, 13, referring to the other commandments. Lit., 'taught'. Lit., 'who? it is'. Lit., 'and they are alike'. Sanh. 61b. V. Glos. Our Mishnah thus represents the view of the Rabbi. V. Mishnah, infra 8a. Lit., 'but'. Lit., 'he taught that', i.e., mentioned the High Priest in the first clause of the Mishnah, infra 5a. The second clause. In our Mishnah. Lit., 'he taught that'. Num. XV, 28. Lit., 'this'. Lit., 'holds the view', 'is of the opinion'. For which the must bring a sin offering. Lit., 'this sin, in error shall be'. In connection with other transgressions. V. Supra 7a. Num. XV. 27. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |